Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Campaign for the Arts

John Robertson: What discussions she has had with the National Campaign for the Arts on Government support for its objectives.

Tessa Jowell: I have met delegations from the National Campaign for the Arts on four occasions within the last year and have read and commented upon its arts manifesto, which I recommend.

John Robertson: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the excellent manifesto launched by the NCA needs looking at. One key point in it relates to the problem of intragovernmental discussions. For example, when children are involved, we need to consider education and skills. What steps is she taking to co-ordinate arts policy as suggested by the NCA, and will she state what real-terms spending on the arts will be in the coming year?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He makes the important point that cross-departmental co-operation—whether it be the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health or the Home Office—is important to maximise the practical benefits of the arts and to focus on the intrinsic value of art and culture to our society.
	I also welcome the opportunity to record that the performing arts have received an unprecedented 60 per cent. real-terms increase in funding over the last six years, because this Government believe in funding the arts, providing stability and rewarding excellence. The arts will receive a further 9 per cent. in real terms next year, and I expect that, in each of the following years, when funding to the Arts Council is flat, arts organisations will receive at least a real-terms increase.

John Whittingdale: Is it not the case that the NCA has said that the need for Government support for the arts has never been stronger, yet just today the chairman of the Arts Council has spoken again of the feeling of betrayal among arts organisations about the Government's freeze in arts funding for the next three years? That comes on top of the reduction of almost 50 per cent. in the money for the arts coming from the lottery. Is it not the case that the biggest boost that we could give to the arts would be to stop using the lottery to substitute for taxpayers' money and instead restore it to its original purpose, thus benefiting each of the original four good causes, including the arts, by more than £100 million a year?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but remind him that Government support for the arts has never been stronger: a 60 per cent. real-terms increase over the last six years. I draw his attention to the fact, which is worthy of close scrutiny, that if his party were to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will not worry about that.

Museums

Mark Hendrick: What support the Government have given to enable increased access to museums in the last five years.

Tessa Jowell: Over the five years from 2000–01 to 2004–05, I have allocated £1.3 billion to the museums and galleries sponsored by my Department. That funding has increased from £228 million to £286 million each year, a real-terms growth of 12.5 per cent. Within the £1.3 billion, we have provided around £140 million in compensation for free admission and that has seen the number of visitors to the museums that previously charged increase by 75 per cent.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the national football museum in Preston, which is on course to triple the throughput of its visitors to 100,000? I thank the Department for the funding that it has provided through the Football Foundation, but will she confirm that the museum will be added to the section 33A list for VAT?

Tessa Jowell: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been an excellent advocate for the football museum. The fact that its funding is now on a stable basis is in no small part due to him. He will also understand that decisions about the VAT status of museums are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State accept from one who agrees with free admission that the compensatory payments provided by the Government are not sufficient?

Tessa Jowell: No, I certainly do not accept that the compensation for museums and galleries is insufficient, as has been shown by funding settlements since the policy was first introduced. The policy was introduced for a clear and explicit reason: to open our museums and galleries to everyone, regardless of their background or ability to pay.

Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is aware that many people are encouraged by the advice and information given by her Department regarding museums. Will she take note of the waterways museum, which requires further support and encouragement, because our waterways system and the culture that goes with it have a great deal to offer? Will she examine the situation of the waterways museum and give support where that is needed?

Tessa Jowell: There are ongoing discussions about the waterways museum in recognition of its importance and the excellence of its offering to the public, and I hope that they will be successfully concluded.

Hugo Swire: While it is true that free entry has increased the number of visits to museums, it is worth pointing out that an increase in the number of visits is not the same as an increase in the number of visitors. Is it not true that the Government have inadequately compensated museums for forcing them to abolish entry charges? Only last week, staff at the Science museum went on strike, with the director blaming the Government for "consistent undervaluing and underfunding" following the abolition of entry fees. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance, as I have, that if directors and trustees of museums wish to charge visitors and if they, as professionals, want to do what they consider best for their museums, they will not be penalised for doing so?

Tessa Jowell: No, I certainly will not, for the clear reason that free entry has led to a 75 per cent. increase in the number of people going to museums that previously charged. Many such people are going for the first time ever, so we will not close our museums by excluding all people except those who can afford to pay.

Jeff Ennis: If she will make a statement on the role regional museums play in the education of children.

Estelle Morris: Regional museums play a valuable role in supporting the education of children and young people. Over the past two years, my Department, in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills, has invested more than £20 million in regional museums' education programmes.

Jeff Ennis: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report entitled "Education Outside the Classroom" recently published by the Education and Skills Committee, on which I serve? One of its main recommendations is that all schools should appoint educational visits co-ordinators. How will the Department help to develop their role in tandem with regional museum curators?

Estelle Morris: The report produced by the Select Committee was timely because a lot of evidence now shows that learning outside school complements what happens in the classroom. It is no longer a nice optional extra, but essential to achieving the quality of education that we want to provide for our children. I tend to think that it is up to schools to decide how to deal with it, but if they think that it is appropriate to appoint a member of staff to co-ordinate visits, I am sure that, through the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and strategic commissioning programmes, together with a close relationship with our Department and the Department for Education and Skills, we would wish to help them. We want to help schools to overcome barriers to children making visits, but I hesitate to be more prescriptive about how they should do that.

Adrian Flook: Over the next few years, Somerset county museum, which is based in Taunton, will face considerable challenges in bringing everything that it can to children, so it will have to look to the Heritage Lottery Fund. Does the Minister agree that it will no doubt make a splendid case and keep an eye open for the application when it is made?

Estelle Morris: I can keep an eye open, but there is nothing that I can do about the application because it is not up to me to decide how the money is spent. If I may raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes, the HLF has already given £400 million for educational activities, so I hope that he and the museum in his constituency are assured that it regards education and heritage in museums as high priorities. I wish him well and applaud the enthusiasm with which he talks about the museum and the contribution that it might make in respect of children in his constituency.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Luton has a wonderful museum service that is one of the regional centres for the eastern region. It has first-class staff who do a wonderful job for our local children, but our museum is under pressure from funding cuts because of the recent budget set by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat council. Although I welcome the Government's extra funding for museums, will she do her best to protect them from local funding cuts?

Estelle Morris: That is infuriating when, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government are investing massive amounts in the regions. Indeed, we are the first Government to invest central Government money in the regions in that way. I applaud those local authorities that have seized the opportunity and increased their funding as well, but I deplore those that have taken the opportunity to remove money from museums. That is a picture of what would happen if the Tories ever got their hands on central Government funding.

Social Inclusion

Joyce Quin: What discussions she has had with regional cultural consortiums on policies to promote social inclusion.

Estelle Morris: The regional cultural consortiums are the Department's strategic cultural bodies in the regions and we communicate with them regularly on a range of policies and issues, including those that promote social inclusion.

Joyce Quin: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Tyne and Wear museums on the record visitor numbers that they have achieved and the way in which they have promoted social inclusion? Does she agree that that success would be further enhanced if there were a regular—or, better still, a permanent—display of the Lindisfarne Gospels in the region? Will she at least meet me to discuss that issue, which is of great local importance?

Estelle Morris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on again bringing to our attention her campaign to get the Gospels back to the north-east. I am delighted with Tyne and Wear museums. They are a national leader in work on regeneration and social inclusion. I am sure that she would acknowledge that the more than £6 million that the Government have given Tyne and Wear museums through the renaissance in the regions project has gone a long way to help that, but the plaudits really go to them for the initiatives that they have taken.
	I would be more than happy to meet my right hon. Friend. I know that she awaits a reply from the director of the British Library and that negotiations are ongoing. She will accept that it is not my decision, but if a meeting with me would help, I would be more than happy to have one with her.

Patrick McLoughlin: Given new Labour-speak, will the Minister explain what the question means?

Estelle Morris: I can, but I am not sure that it is worth the hon. Gentleman asking that question. It means that we agree on devolving to the front line. We want each region to take charge of its cultural activities. We want it to set its own priorities and to be a regional voice for the arts. We want the regions to tell us how we can help them. We are committed to that activity on the ground and the evidence of that is reflected in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). The regions make a huge contribution. The fact that the hon. Gentleman wants an explanation of social inclusion tells us more about the Tory party in 2005 than it does about anything else.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I help the Minister and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) by explaining that the business of social inclusion in the arts relates to the fact that some of the poorest and most deprived children do not have access to quality classical music, the ballet or the opera? Can we therefore have a manifesto commitment that every schoolchild will have access each year to a performance of classical music and other arts, including opera? After all, their mums and dads buy the wretched lottery tickets that pay for the quality performances enjoyed by the middle classes and the rich people on the Conservative Benches.

Estelle Morris: It is not for me to commit our party to what may or may not be in the manifesto. The important point about social inclusion is that the treasures held in our museums, and the skills of our actors and of those who play in our orchestras, benefit everyone, no matter what sort of family background or region children are born into. We know from the statistics that whole groups of people do not access the arts because they do not think they are for them. We are determined, through all the measures that we take, to give them the confidence to ensure that they access the arts and get from them what many of us have always got from them. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating the fact that more children go to the theatre, listen to orchestras and watch the ballet than did in 1997. Equally, I accept from him that even more needs to be done.

Leisure (Wales)

Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions she has had with her counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales Government on the use of leisure to assist physical and mental well-being.

Richard Caborn: Sport and physical activity was on the agenda at the last sports cabinet meeting in April last year. The sports cabinet, comprising the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the four home country Ministers with responsibility for sport, provides for a collective political discussion of the most strategic priorities across the UK, including those of UK Sport.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In an era of devolved government—different approaches adopted in different regions and different countries in the UK—it is more important than ever that England, Wales and Scotland learn from each other about best practice. In the five-year-old Petri dish of devolution, what specifically are Wales and England learning from each other's experiments on the use of leisure to help physical and mental well-being?

Richard Caborn: Sport and physical activity was on the agenda at the last sports cabinet meeting because we wanted to discuss the free swim pilot schemes in Wales, which I understand from the statistics have been hugely successful. We also discussed community coaching, which has largely been based in England, although we are sharing those experiences with colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a great desire to learn through best practice to ensure that we deliver the best possible services, particularly in grass-roots participation.

Peter Kilfoyle: When the sports cabinet next meets, will the Minister ensure that it discusses the idiocy of the Football Association's rolling over before the BBC on the timing of football matches, which was a major contributory factor to the disgraceful scenes perpetrated by a minority in my constituency on Saturday?

Richard Caborn: That probably will not be a subject for the sports cabinet because, as my hon. Friend knows, there are separate football associations for Scotland and for England. However, I agree that we may have to revisit the subject of the start time of 5.30 pm, particularly for matches that clearly have some problems attached to them. The FA and the authorities ought to look at that. The long way that we have come in getting the rogue element out of football ought not to be spoiled by a handful of spectators who on Saturday night yet again brought our national game into disrepute.

Osborne Estate Act

Andrew Turner: What plans she has to amend the Osborne Estate Act 1902.

Estelle Morris: The Government are committed to seeking Parliament's approval to amend the Osborne Estate Act 1902. We have not yet found a suitable legislative slot, but we continue to explore all avenues.

Andrew Turner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the closure of the convalescent home at Osborne was announced as far back as 11 May 1999? The home was closed in 2000, leaving excellent premises lying empty and depriving islanders of job opportunities and the island of revenue. This is the fifth question that I have asked on this subject since 2001. When will the Government either comply with the legislation, which requires that the premises be devoted to use for the benefit of officers of Her Majesty's naval and military forces and their wives, or amend the Act to enable a wonderful asset to be used for the benefit of my constituents and the millions of people each year who visit the Isle of Wight?

Estelle Morris: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and the position that his constituents are in. It is important first to amend the legislation. The Isle of Wight's plans for development of the site look to have gained local approval. It is up to the Isle of Wight, but perhaps that will go ahead. The proposed legislation is ready. The hon. Gentleman will know that it just failed to find parliamentary time before the last general election. We have a private Member's Bill ready should he be lucky enough to be drawn early in the ballot. The best and most optimistic way forward might be to use a regulatory reform order. Following his question and my looking at the matter, I very much hope that we might be able to do that. That is not a promise—we have not yet received a message that that would be appropriate—but I am with him, and we will introduce the legislation as soon as we can.

Physical Activity (Participation)

Andy Reed: What progress her Department is making in increasing participation levels in sport and physical activity.

Tessa Jowell: About 31 per cent. of the adult population currently take the recommended level of exercise each week. Each year, we aim to increase that percentage by 1 per cent., which means getting 480,000 people a year to change their lifestyles and exercise regularly. On children, we are on target to meet our objective of ensuring that 75 per cent. of schoolchildren spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality physical education and school sport within and beyond the curriculum by 2006.

Andy Reed: As my right hon. Friend knows, we have implemented plans for school sport and are moving in the right direction. On elite sport, she visited Loughborough university last week, where she saw some of the best-trained athletes in the world. However, we must do much more work on increasing participation among young children and the adult population. What progress does she believe can be made towards the target, which is daunting? A number of years ago, "Game Plan" stated that we want to reach 70 per cent. participation, which is a long way off. Does she believe that we can make progress? Volunteers are the people who will make a difference and, in the year of volunteering, she should back them to ensure delivery at the grass roots.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The target is tough, but it will be achieved by two routes. First, Departments will work together closely to promote public education and public understanding of the benefits of exercise and, secondly, the regional sports boards will provide delivery. The Tories threaten that objective, because they would cut regional sports boards.

Nicholas Winterton: Why do only 75 per cent. of children take part in physical activity—the statistic was part of the Secretary of State's original answer? Will she encourage competitive team sports in schools, so that all young people can take part, because, as we know from the cases of paraplegics and others, even those who have some form of disability can still participate in sport? If we did so, we would suffer much less obesity.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The target is for 75 per cent. of children to participate by 2006, for 85 per cent. of children to participate by 2008 and for the two-hour objective to be exceeded by 2010. We are investing in the promotion of competitive sport in schools: about 90 per cent. of the schools participating in the linked arrangements focusing on school sport are holding sports days and have reintroduced competitive sport. If we are to win medals at the 2012 Olympics in London, our children need to be competing now.

Andy Burnham: Does the Secretary of State agree that the time has come to give every schoolchild an entitlement to play after-school competitive sport and receive qualified coaching in the main sports?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, I certainly do. The investment in and focus on sport in schools means that we should achieve that objective over the next four to five years. It takes time to implement such policies properly, because, as my hon. Friend said, trained coaches and PE teachers are necessary to engage children with sport and to teach them properly, and that is what we are doing.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that obtaining the 2012 Olympics would boost people's interest in sport and help to achieve the targets, and I congratulate the Olympic bid team on its work in the past week. Does she agree that we can have little confidence in the Government's aspirations for the targets set out in "Game Plan", when we discover that the target for 70 per cent. of the population to be active by 2020 is already 20 years behind schedule and was rejected by Wanless and Sport England? The 70 per cent. figure came from a mistranslation by the Secretary of State's Department of a document from Finland, which claimed that 70 per cent. of Finns already achieve the target, when the actual figure is only 30 per cent.

Tessa Jowell: I shall not go into all the background that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which is questionable. The objective is very tough. No other country has achieved such high participation levels at such a pace, but because physical activity is so closely related to reducing deaths from heart disease, cancer, obesity and so forth, we are determined to focus on that challenging goal.

Dave Watts: Is it not time that that we spent a bigger proportion of our lottery funding on sport instead of culture, and will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a tick box on lottery tickets to allow people to decide whether they spend their money on culture or sport?

Tessa Jowell: Over the past four to five years, there has been a very substantial increase—from memory, more than 100 per cent.—in funding for sport. In the run-up to 2009, there will be an opportunity for lottery players to express their views about how the money for good causes should be allocated. However, my hon. Friend should reflect on the enormous value that arts investment through the lottery has for those around the country who feel passionately about the arts.

Hugh Robertson: Is it not staggering that, despite the provision of considerable sums of lottery money, the general household survey shows that the number of adults participating in at least one sporting activity has fallen from 64 per cent. in 1996 to 58 per cent. in 2002, the last year for which figures are available? Has not the time come to change Government policy to direct funding and resources through the sports national governing bodies directly to amateur sports clubs rather than through wasteful regional bureaucracy?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman rightly reflects on the variation in the level of participation. I hope that figures will shortly be available showing the way in which the trends are going. Nobody denies that this is a very tough target, but the best way of implementing it is to pull together everybody who needs to be part of the mission to achieve it at a regional level—that is, through the regional sports boards, which would be abolished were the Tories ever to return to power.

Sports Clubs (Tax Relief)

Jane Griffiths: What discussions she has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on tax relief for amateur sports clubs.

Richard Caborn: I correspond regularly and have a close working relationship with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who takes a close interest in the welfare of amateur sports clubs, particularly as regards progress with the community amateur sports clubs scheme. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that more than 2,000 clubs have registered and are enjoying the benefits not only of the CASC scheme but of mandatory rate relief. That has enabled them to invest on a much more certain basis than has been possible for many years.

Jane Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. Will he join me expressing good wishes to the Palmer Park velocycling club in my constituency, which I feel confident will produce cycling stars like Bradley Wiggins and Nicole Cooke for the future?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. I hope that the success of that club will be mirrored around the country, particularly given that investment in school sports is probably the highest that it has ever been. In terms of amateur clubs, it is important that we arrest the figure of 70 per cent. of school leavers not continuing in active sport. Building up the club structure, with the support of the governing bodies, is very important if we are to have a sustainable sport infrastructure in future.

Malcolm Moss: I confirm that Conservative Members very much welcome the CASC scheme, which, the Minister will no doubt be delighted to learn, I promoted in my local press last week. While tax relief is indeed helpful, it is the total level of costs and taxes that interests amateur sports clubs. Why then has the Minister reneged on a commitment made to me in Committee by his predecessor carefully to consider discounts on licensing fees for sports clubs?

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for congratulating the Government on their work on the community amateur sports club scheme and mandatory rate relief. Those clubs waited 30 years for that but at least we have now delivered it.
	I believe that the licensing fee would be approximately £90 for sports clubs. The minimum fee for sports or social clubs is £25. The cost per person would therefore be negligible and could be reflected in the product sold behind the bar. The Licensing Act 2003 provides for many advantages for sports clubs. It amalgamates six licensing authorities into one. It covers entertainment and the development of clubs. If the provisions are used effectively, clubs will make considerably more profit than £90, the licensing fee.

Andrew Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an illogicality in giving some of the amateur clubs rate relief and taking it away by setting the licensing fee on the basis of the rateable value? For example, much of the rateable value of a bowling green in my constituency is based on the greens, which have almost no source of income. Surely local authorities should treat such groups favourably in the licensing process.

Richard Caborn: If people want free booze at the clubs, that is fine. The CASC scheme is designed for those who play sport and many sports clubs do not run a bar. The CASC scheme and mandatory rate relief will apply fully to them. My hon. Friend refers to clubs that have a bar. They will pay £90 for that in the first instance.

Malcolm Moss: More than that.

Richard Caborn: Well, if they pay more than that, they are selling much more booze and making a much greater profit. The sports clubs that have licensed bars should be able to reflect the fee in the price of the commodity. The CASC scheme is not only about licensing authorities. Many sports clubs do not run a bar. They will receive the full benefit of the CASC scheme and the mandatory rate relief.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister recall that, in the halcyon days when there were lots of pits in the coal-mining areas and we had miners' welfares—probably 70-odd in Derbyshire alone—many operated on a similar basis of rate relief, which enabled the clubs and welfares to continue to play football, cricket and so on? Now, because of the closures of the pits and welfares by the Conservative party, we do not have the same number of facilities. In Bolsover, we would be only too glad to pay the tax if we could get back the Bolsover swimming baths, which were lost when the Tories were in. Let's get the show back on the road.

Richard Caborn: I can honestly say: third time lucky. That is the third time that my hon. Friend has asked that question. I have visited Bolsover and we are trying to work towards a solution so that my hon. Friend's constituency will have the swimming complex that used to be there. We will continue to work towards that. I will take up the matter with my officials and I hope that he will not have to raise it at Question Time again. [Interruption.] No, that is not a commitment—it is an aspiration.

Sports Clubs (Workington Floods)

Tony Cunningham: What support her Department is giving to sports clubs in Workington constituency affected by recent flooding.

Richard Caborn: The Department works closely with other Departments to set the policy framework, but decisions on the distribution of funding for sport and physical activity are the responsibility of our funding bodies, primarily Sport England and UK Sport. However, sports clubs that are badly affected by the recent flooding may apply to the Cumbria Community Foundation for assistance from the Cumbria flood recovery fund, which was set up in the county to help individuals and community groups. Individual sports governing bodies may also be able to offer financial support.
	Keswick rugby union club has applied successfully for assistance to both the Cumbria flood recovery fund and to the Rugby Football Union's Football Foundation Trust, through which it has been able to access the Space for Sport fund.

Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful reply. Will he take a personal interest in Keswick rugby union club and its recovery? As a result of the recent flooding, the club house is under 6 ft of water, and a brand new one might have to be built. This is a well established rugby union club with a fantastic record of promoting youth rugby, which this Government totally support.

Richard Caborn: I will look at this specific issue. The club has probably one of the most beautiful rugby union grounds in the country, looking out across the Lake district. I have also been reading about its fantastic history. I understand that the Rugby Football Union is also taking a close look at the matter, and that financial facilities have been offered on an interest-free basis. Everyone is trying to put their weight behind the Keswick rugby club, and I hope that we can find a solution to what is undoubtedly a difficult problem.

Museums

Bill Wiggin: What recent meetings she has had with the Museums Association to discuss funding for museums.

Estelle Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met senior representatives of the Museums Association to discuss funding for museums before and after making the spending review allocations. My most recent meeting with the president and director of the Museums Association was on 6 January this year.

Bill Wiggin: In reply to the shadow Minister for the Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), the Minister did not address his point about the strikes at the Science museum, whose director has said that
	"the problem is a consistent undervaluing and underfunding of science by the DCMS."
	What is the Minister going to do about that?

Estelle Morris: The director could not have been talking about the period when this Government have had responsibility for the national museums. Every single museum, including the Science museum, has had a real-terms increase in this spending settlement. Indeed, the Science museum's capital settlement for this spending review is set to double. That could never have happened under the Tories. What the museums really fear—I have seen this in the press—is going back to the days of Tory cuts. That has not happened under this Government, and it will not happen.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the north-east regional museums hub. Like many others, I welcome the free access to museums that was introduced by this Government. Is she also aware that excellent museums such as the Beamish museum in my constituency still have to levy charges and that they struggle from year to year to get local authority funding? Will she look into the funding of excellent museums such as Beamish when she is considering funding in the future?

Estelle Morris: I have looked at the situation at the Beamish museum, because it was brought to my attention by another of our hon. Friends. Of course some museums still have to charge for entry, but we have introduced free entry at those for which we have responsibility. There is no way we can go further than that. However, if my memory serves me correctly, the Beamish museum has benefited from part of the almost £7 million that has gone to the north-east for renaissance in the regions. I think that the museum has also put in a request for a Heritage Lottery Fund grant. I shall be more than happy to look at this matter, and if I can be helpful, I will be, but we are not into taking museums on to the national funding list at the moment.

Football

Bob Russell: What recent discussions she has had with football authorities on the governance of the professional game.

Richard Caborn: The Government are driving forward a modernisation programme for all governing bodies, and we hope to make them all fit for purpose. The Football Association is no exception. I am pleased to say that, under the leadership of Lord Burns, the FA has instigated an independent review of its structure and governance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the FA in August 2004, and I have been in regular contact with it since then. I also had a meeting with Lord Burns in January 2005 as part of his initial discussions with the key stakeholders.

Bob Russell: The Minister referred earlier to a handful of hooligans bringing the national game into disrepute at the weekend. Does he agree, however, that a bigger threat to the professional game in this country is the manner in which it is being run at the highest level? Does he also agree that the game is rotten to the core, and that it is time for the Government to hold a summit for all involved in it, so that we can save the professional game before those at the top destroy it?

Richard Caborn: I totally disagree with that statement. The game is not rotten to the core. In fact, I would suggest that the component parts of football in this country are probably some of the best in the world. Our premier division is probably the best in terms of professionalism, and there are more than 40,000 clubs playing in the amateur game, week in and week out, under the Football Association.
	Without doubt, there is an argument about regulation and governance, which has grown over the years, but Lord Burns will be looking at those issues very carefully. However, it is fundamentally wrong to say that our national game is rotten to the core. I believe that its component parts are very healthy indeed and would stand examination with those of any other football anywhere in the world.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government cannot wash their hands of football and its governance? Football clubs are unique community institutions, and when a football club such as Wrexham, which is still in administration, faces its end, there are profound implications for the town. Will he therefore ensure that the many, many clubs that are under threat have an open system of governance so that the supporters who support them week in, week out know how much danger their clubs are in?

Richard Caborn: I fully agree with that. What the Football League has done in the recent past in considering fit and proper persons, as well as the whole question of the corporate and social governance of football, has been important. Quite a number of ground rules have been introduced to achieve some of the objectives that my hon. Friend has referred to. There is more transparency and better management, and it is not so long ago that we were talking about the collapse of ITV Digital and many doom-mongers were saying that half the Football League was going into administration. Football is resilient; it came out of that. It has had to refocus on where it came from—its communities—which I welcome, and I still believe that there will be some turmoil in football's finances, which will need managing through. That is why we need a good governing body in the Football Association and we also need those ground rules to be brought in. I know that the Football League and the premier division are discussing that to ensure that this game is transparent, credible and responsible to the fans and the community in which it operates.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Overseas Electoral Registration

Nigel Evans: What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Foreign Office on distribution of leaflets on overseas voter registration.

Andrew Turner: What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on ensuring that the timetable to register to vote is communicated to overseas voters.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is abroad on NATO Parliamentary Assembly business, and I have been asked to reply in his absence.
	The Electoral Commission has been working in close partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to improve the information available to potential overseas voters. To that end, the commission has asked embassies, high commissions and consulates to publicise and make available its new leaflet, "Register to Vote From Overseas". This leaflet, which is also available electronically on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and commission websites, includes a specific reference to the fact that the deadline for registering can be up to two months before an election.
	In addition, the commission has paid for advertisements and generated coverage in overseas media to explain the voting timetable. The commission informs me that during the first week of its campaign, 30,000 copies of the leaflet were ordered by overseas post, expatriate organisations and individuals. More than 5,000 registration forms were downloaded from the website during the first week, and up to 10,000 by the second.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that detailed response.
	The Prime Minister says he does not know when the next general election will be, but The Sun says it will be 5 May. That is good enough for me. If it is on 5 May, the cut-off date for registration will be 11 March, so people will have to get their skates on if they have to register from overseas. I am delighted with the leaflet, but it is a little late, quite frankly, and the high commissions and embassies have to order it themselves, rather than having it sent out directly.
	Can my hon. Friend give me an assurance that, after the general election when a post mortem takes place, she will consider ways in which the Electoral Commission and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can improve their relationship to spread the message about people's entitlement to vote in general elections, including improving the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website?

Angela Browning: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. On the question of the website, I am a little confused about how easy it will be for people to access such information. I will ask the commission to talk again to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether getting information on overseas voting can be made easier for those accessing that website. As for a post-election wash-up, I am happy to pass that on to the commission as a recommendation.

Andrew Turner: Has the Foreign Office a role in ensuring that overseas service personnel have the opportunity to register easily? In the light of the Government's changes to service personnel registration procedures, it would be sad were our servicemen good enough to fight but not good enough to vote.

Angela Browning: I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue many times and is very concerned about it. The commission, on whose behalf I am answering, is undertaking a range of activities to contact service personnel about voter registration. That includes editorial work in service publications and media broadcasts, an information leaflet to be distributed in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, and a specific on-line information and registration form. I understand that the MOD has issued a Defence Council instruction on this matter.

Clive Betts: Does not the hon. Lady agree that at a time when electoral registration in many local authority areas is no better than 90 per cent., and in some inner city areas is probably much worse than that, extra resources for electoral registration should be spent on improving registration among UK residents, particularly among young people, rather than on those people who have chosen to live abroad?

Angela Browning: The Electoral Commission has a remit and a duty to ensure voting at all levels and in all places. It has not spent money disproportionately on overseas registration. Rightly, however, it has a duty to ensure that people overseas are aware of their right to vote and to facilitate that as much as possible.

Simon Hughes: Following the hon. Lady's full answer, can she get the Electoral Commission to give one last prompt to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that an e-mail message is sent to all our missions, which can be sent on to all the organisations that they know where there are contacts with British nationals? Of course we need people here to register, but people are entitled to register when they are abroad, and that sort of e-mail prompt might produce much more of a response than lots of leaflets and glossy brochures.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right in asking, especially as we may be close to an election, that the commission should prompt the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to do as much as it can. He may like to know that at its prompting, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent out a telegram on 3 February, making sure that as many as possible of our embassies, consulates and high commissions were aware of their duty and the role that we expect them to play.

Postal Voting

George Mudie: What representations the Electoral Commission has received on guidance issued to electoral registration officers on postal voter identification.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the guidance issued by the commission to electoral registration officers in December 2004, on the extent of their power to supply absent voter lists and records. That set out the commission's view of the law as it stands. The Parliamentary Parties Panel and several local councillors made representations that the advice was unhelpful. The commission is of the view, however, that the law should be changed, and has recommended that registered political parties should also be given access to the list of absent voters. The commission hopes that the Government will legislate for this change.

George Mudie: I thank the hon. Lady for that advice. Considering that the greatest problem that all political parties have, however, is persuading people to vote, does she not believe that the Electoral Commission's intervention was unhelpful and counter-productive? Considering that we have had four general elections and 20 annual council elections since the Representation of the People Act 1983, with no problem in relation to absentee voter lists, will she not agree to make representations to the Electoral Commission to ask it to write to electoral registration officers pointing out that the circular contains only advice and is not legally binding, in an effort to produce a change of mind?

Angela Browning: As I stated to the hon. Gentleman, I have discussed this matter with the commission. Its advice was based on its interpretation of the law, and it believes that the strengthening that he would like must involve a change in the law. I am sure that he will be aware—if not, I am sure that the commission will provide it to him—of the marked register published by the commission last week, which recommends that the law be changed to introduce that. We understand that the Government are likely to consult on the matter. I am sure that, in order to secure the clarity that he wants, the hon. Gentleman will play his part in persuading them to accept the recommendation that the law be changed.

Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)? The Electoral Commission should be encouraging people to vote, especially when turnout is down, and it should interpret the law more liberally for the purposes of the coming election. Political parties should be allowed to have the absent-vote list; if we do not have it, that will be very damaging to our democracy.

Angela Browning: The Electoral Commission based its advice to EROs on its understanding of the law as it stands. That is why it has made a specific recommendation that the law be changed. Many of us would like it to be changed to facilitate what my right hon. Friend wants, and Members in all parts of the House now have an opportunity to lobby the Government, who are able to change it.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Clergy (Terms of Service)

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the review of clergy terms of service.

Stuart Bell: Last Tuesday the General Synod debated the review group's second report, and welcomed the recommendation that employment rights under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 be granted to all clergy. The report was commended to the wider Church for comment, and an implementation group will be set up to introduce legislation.

Ben Chapman: I welcome that news, but will my hon. Friend confirm that overall the proposals for a review of conditions of service represent a series of modernising measures? While there are legitimate concerns about security of tenure, is it not right and proper for clergy as far as possible to have the contracts, employment rights and, indeed, obligations that other members of society already have?

Stuart Bell: The Synod expressed reservations about security of tenure, and about the suggestion that legal ownership of Church property that goes with the freehold should be transferred to diocesan boards of finance. That does not, however, alter the fact that it welcomed the bid for the employment rights for which my hon. Friend has campaigned so hard. No one will be forced to lose the freehold, but it will be possible to opt into tenure.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign he has led for so many years in the current Parliament. I am sure that when we debate legislation to implement employment rights for clergy, he will support us on the Floor of the House.

John Bercow: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has just said. As one who has consistently supported both the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) in urging the Church of England to come into the 21st century, I think that the news we have received today is positive indeed. May I, however—without in any sense wishing to carp—point out that there is still serious concern about the rights of spouses of members of the clergy? One woman is currently very worried about being rendered homeless as a consequence of domestic violence inflicted by her spouse, who is a member of the clergy. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate rights exist for spouses, or does he think that the issue needs investigation?

Stuart Bell: That would certainly be a matter for investigation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. It should be remembered that clergy do not own property in the same way as a home owner: they do not benefit if the value of the property rises, and they do not have to fund its repairs. A spouse would clearly have a problem if her husband was the parish priest and lost his position. We will look into the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Voting

Bob Spink: What recommendations the Electoral Commission has made on improving the security of postal voting.

Angela Browning: The Electoral Commission has recommended changes to strengthen the legal framework for postal voting, including the introduction of offences relating to undue influence, personation and fraudulent postal vote applications, as well as post-election security checks of postal vote stationery.

Bob Spink: I am grateful for that response, but what is being done specifically to ensure that postal ballot papers sent to residential homes or to those with learning difficulties are not hijacked and misused by people other than the intended recipients?

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend will know that the commission has made specific recommendations to the Government, which we hope that they will take up. In particular, we are waiting to hear from the Government about how EROs will check what has happened post election, including the checking of groups who have been identified as possible targets for some form of postal vote fraud. Such groups certainly include the vulnerable people whom my hon. Friend mentioned.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Heritage Forum

Anne McIntosh: What assessment the commissioners have made of the work of the Church Heritage Forum.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners are represented on the Church Heritage Forum and they support its work.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. I commend the forum's work to the House, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might explain how individual applications for such work can be made. One or two projects in the Vale of York would benefit from it, and I can think of a few others as well. Will he share with the House the best way forward?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, and I am happy to look into the matter and to give her a proper response in due course. She will want to know that the Bishop of London issued Synod with a "use it or lose it" warning on Tuesday night in respect of the VAT rebate secured by the Church. Despite our best efforts to promote the listed places of worship grant scheme, take-up is disappointing. The hon. Lady will doubtless join me in urging Members to encourage parishes in their constituencies to take advantage of the scheme for which she and I, among others, have fought so hard.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
	The business for this week will now be:
	Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.
	Wednesday 23 February—Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
	Thursday 24 February—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Electoral Registration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
	Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for next week will now include:
	Monday 28 February—Committee and remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
	I will of course make my usual business statement on Thursday.

Oliver Heald: The Leader of the House knows how seriously we view the decisions that the House will have to make about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill; indeed, such concern is shared in all parts of the House and in the country. Just this morning, I received an email from a solicitor stating that
	"imprisonment without trial on the say-so of the Executive is completely contrary to our way of life and obviously open to abuse."
	The Leader of the House will therefore realise how angry we are at the fact that this measure is to be rammed through the House, with our time for debate ruthlessly curtailed. The Bill should not be guillotined and it should have a proper Committee stage. The Government say that this legislation is urgent, but they have had more than three years since 9/11 in which to take the necessary decisions, and two months since the court case that prompted these changes. Is the House really to have just two days in which to consider these important matters? At one time, the Leader of the House would not have defended such proposals, which are redolent of the measures that he fought against so fiercely in South Africa. Will he think again about this Bill and, more importantly, about the time allowed for debate?

Peter Hain: I am certainly not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman on civil liberties. Frankly, his synthetic anger suggests that he wishes to remain in opposition as shadow Leader of the House, rather than having to behave in the responsible way in which the Government are required to behave, given the terrorism threat that we face. There is no plan to ram this Bill through the House of Commons. He seems not to be aware that as a result of the Law Lords' decision, Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest. The Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees—if appropriate—before the part 4 powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 lapse on 14 March as a consequence of the Law Lords' judgment. It is not possible simply to renew them, because the Law Lords have declared that they are not lawful. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is the job of the Government to balance civil liberties and their continued protection with ensuring that we fight terrorism at every opportunity.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. The priority of the Liberal Democrats is to avoid any further derogation from the European convention on human rights, which is the central issue that must be tackled. We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is putting some proposals before the House, but I must make the point that it is three years too late. As to the court ruling, we look with great regret on the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent it. We shall look very carefully at their proposals. If the legislation that results from the proposals does not find favour with the House, we would certainly want a much shorter derogation period—not 12 months, but perhaps four—in future, while we work out in greater detail across the House some satisfactory solutions to this difficult legal conundrum.

Peter Hain: First, I acknowledge that the leader of the Liberal Democrats behaved in a responsible way when he saw the Prime Minister last Friday and said that he welcomed some of the changes being made—I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees—in contrast to the opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. As to circumvention, it is not a matter of circumventing the ruling but of introducing legislation so that we are no longer out of compliance with the European convention on human rights, as the Law Lords ruled. It is a question of overcoming that anomaly in the best way possible, which is what the leader of the Liberal Democrats discussed with the Prime Minister last Friday. Those discussions were very constructive.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the Leader of the House understand that the measures likely to be contained in the Bill represent the greatest attack on the liberty of the British people for 300 years? He understandably does not wish to take lessons from Conservative Members in that regard, but does he realise that many Labour Members—and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people outside the House who are natural Labour supporters—share precisely the concerns aired by the official Opposition spokesman?

Peter Hain: The greatest attack on civil liberties in Britain in 300 years would be a suicide terrorist attack right at the heart of our communities. The Government would be acting irresponsibly if they did not, while balancing concerns about civil liberties, deter such an attack. It seems that some Opposition Members, among others, are encouraging us to act in that irresponsible way.

Ian Paisley: The Leader of the House may not be aware that Northern Ireland Members were informed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would make a statement to the House today. Does he have any idea when that statement will be made during the course of this week? He will know that the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has issued a statement saying that he has evidence that two Members of this House—I refer to McGuinness and Adams—are members of the army council of the IRA. That has now been put on record, so surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have a statement about what is taking place there.

Peter Hain: It is the Secretary of State's intention to make a statement, but there was no plan to do so today.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Leader of the House referred to the constructive discussions between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. May I remind my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that that is all very well, but we in the House are not privy to those discussions? There should be some disclosure before Second Reading as to whether agreement or concord was reached between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal party. We also need to know whether—this is a crucial point for many Labour Members who have not been consulted in the same way—a judicial element applies when people are detained in their houses. For me, that is the critical point. While I am seized of the gravity of potential terrorism, I am not prepared to support legislation that keeps people in custody in their homes on the decision of a politician, although I might accept that decision by a judge—I see colleagues nodding in agreement. This is a dynamic situation and I hope that my right hon. Friend will report back to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister this afternoon. If he wants us to support him in the Lobby, he must meet our concerns.

Peter Hain: I understand the reasons for my hon. Friend's question and I believe that he will be encouraged when the Home Secretary makes a statement tomorrow, which he intends to do before Second Reading so that any questions can be put to him. That will give plenty of time before the remaining stages, including Committee stage next Monday, for any points to be taken on board. I believe that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the contents of the Bill and that some of the worst fears that have been expressed in the media and elsewhere will prove not to be well founded.

Tim Boswell: The Leader of the House is clearly right in saying that we need to reach an understanding about the balance between liberty and the threats to it. However, in the spirit of the debate on a Liberal Democrat motion less than two weeks ago, does he accept that there are genuine concerns, particularly about the judicial element, throughout the House, and that the best way of resolving those is to have adequate debate rather than ramming the Bill through with undue haste, which is likely to lead to tears?

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I do not accept that we are ramming the Bill through with undue haste. I have already explained the reason for putting in place the necessary legislation and obtaining Royal Assent by early March in the light of the Law Lords' ruling. The Bill amends a specific section of the 2001 Act and there is no need to discuss it for more than two days. When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the Bill when it is published tomorrow, I think that he will be reassured that we are adopting a course of action that protects civil liberties and also protects us from terrorist attack. The balance is difficult, but when he hon. Gentleman hears what the Home Secretary announces, I think that he will agree that we have got the balance about right, although we will listen to any constructive suggestions to improve the Bill.

Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the strong action that he wants to take in response to terrorist threats would receive greater support if it were clear that all the available evidence would be brought to court, particularly phone tap evidence? That greatly exercised the Standing Committee that considered the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, but when the Bill reached this House, only one sentence of objection came from a Labour Member—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is vital that phone tap evidence be admissible in court to minimise the prospect of people being unnecessarily detained without trial.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He, too, will have a chance to question the Home Secretary tomorrow if he is not satisfied on that point.

Simon Thomas: I hope that the Leader of the House is aware that when the Home Secretary made his initial statement to the House he agreed with me that we need the widest consultation and discussion with Members from all parties before introducing a Bill. We shall not see the Bill until tomorrow, and most of us are totally unaware of its contents. Has not the Leader of the House, in his other job as Secretary of State for Wales, utterly failed in not consulting with other political parties in Wales?

Peter Hain: No.

David Kidney: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last made a statement to the House on this subject he gave an assurance that, whenever possible, a prosecution would be the preferred course of action. Is it the intention that the legislation will enshrine that as a precondition before control orders are possible? Have any thoughts been given to creating the new criminal offences recommended by the Newton report? Is it the intention that a cadre of judges will have the specific responsibility for dealing with such cases?

Peter Hain: I think that my hon. Friend will see, when the Bill is published and the Home Secretary makes his statement, that a careful system of checks and balances will be put in place. I think that he will be encouraged by that—at least I hope he will be.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement is about the rearrangement of business, and the substance of the matter can be inquired about tomorrow when the Home Secretary makes his statement.

Andrew MacKay: Presumably the Leader of the House has been aware since the Law Lords' judgment that fresh legislation would have to be completed by early March, so it is his fault and not that of his critics in the House that it is being rushed through at this late hour. In those circumstances, should not there be more than one day for Committee and a slightly longer gap between Second Reading and Committee and Report so that we can consult interested parties outside?

Peter Hain: For the reasons that I have already explained, I do not consider that necessary, because the Bill amends only one section of the 2001 Act. There will be plenty of time both to debate it in principle on Wednesday and to probe the Home Secretary before that, tomorrow. There will then be detailed line-by-line consideration on Monday. The precedents established by previous Governments, including ours and those in which the right hon. Gentleman served, show that when we have had to introduce emergency legislation of this kind, we have had to do it quickly. The reason it is being done at this time is that much care and thought have gone into getting the balance absolutely right—as best we can—between the protection of individual liberties and the threat of terrorist action. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome what we are doing when the whole proposal is published tomorrow.

Andrew Hunter: Further to the point that the Irish Government have publicly and formally identified two Members of the House as members of a terrorist organisation, should not that be a matter of grave concern to the House and one that it should address at the earliest opportunity?

Peter Hain: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter before us at the moment.

Patrick Cormack: I listened carefully to everything that the Leader of the House said, but why can we not have a few days to reflect on the Bill, which none of us has seen? Why cannot we have its Second Reading on Monday and complete its stages during the rest of next week? That would give us all an opportunity to read it and to reflect and consult on it, and many of the charges justifiably levelled at the Leader of the House could then be withdrawn.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and he is always entitled to press me for more time, especially on such important issues. I remind him, however, that Royal Assent is required by early March at the latest as the Bill will need to be in force and control orders made in respect of the current detainees, if appropriate, before the part 4 powers lapse on 14 March; otherwise those people may simply walk out. The procedure still has to take its course in the House of Lords before Royal Assent can take place, and the Bill may be closely debated there, as the Lords are entitled to do. We are absolutely right to bring in the Bill as we have done, but we are anxious to see the fullest possible scrutiny of it.

Crispin Blunt: Does the Leader of the House understand that people will be incredulous that the House will go from First to Third Reading in six days to impose, on the recommendation of the nation's secret police, powers of administrative detention? That he of all people should be recommending that to the House on such a timetable is extraordinary, and I hope that the Government will review it.

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I can give the hon. Gentleman no encouragement or satisfaction on that point. I have explained the necessity for the timetable. Surely he will understand that something has to be done before the powers lapse on 14 March, especially in light of the Law Lords declaring that the current legislation is defective in this respect and out of compliance. We need to do something about that, and I would have thought that he would join in a constructive discussion—and encourage the Leader of the Opposition to get involved—about the exact balance to strike, rather than opposing the measure almost outright, as appears to be the case.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, many of us in all parts of the House believe that the decision suddenly, and with such haste, to introduce this threatening piece of legislation is extremely undesirable, given that one of the linchpins of our liberties is under threat. Can he, on the strength, presumably, of advance sight of the draft of the Bill, at least offer the House an assurance that where such a sacred liberty is under threat the Bill that we see will be the Bill in total, and that there will be no provision in its clauses for further and potentially damaging incursions on liberty, introduced by the Government in the form of secondary legislation?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the contents of the Bill, but as I keep saying, I think he will be reassured. What the Government are doing and what we have always stood by is ensuring that the protection of individual liberty comes first—that is something that I have spent many years of my life fighting for—but in a situation where we have the suicide bomber and an international terrorist threat of quite a different order even from that of the IRA in past years, we need to be very careful about protecting our security and protecting our liberty alongside it, because if our security is not protected, what is the point of any liberty?

Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House keeps telling us about the very tight timetable that we must meet. Presumably, he knew of that timetable when he made his last business statement to the House. Since then, the House has not sat for a week, and now he tells us that there will be but six days from First to Third Reading. Will he assure me now that the House of Lords will not get longer to debate this issue than the House of Commons, which is elected?

Peter Hain: Again, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman puffs himself up into anger about this issue, because the truth is that the original Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, following the events of 11 September, was taken in three days—the whole Bill. Its Second Reading took place on 19 November, and then there were two days of debates in Committee and on Third Reading—so three days in total. We are devoting two days to one aspect of that Bill, as opposed to the entire Bill, which took three days. Therefore, we are entitled to ask for the House's understanding in the circumstances.
	As for the other point about timing, yes, the recess has come between my last business statement and now. I have come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and one of the reasons why there has been some delay—I genuinely make no criticism about this—is that the Prime Minister wanted to consult both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats. That consultation took place on Friday, and I do not think that it could have taken place beforehand. That is one of the reasons why we are proceeding in this way.

Points of Order

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about a ministerial statement on Stansted airport. You will probably be aware that, last Friday, while the House was not sitting, the High Court upheld a series of challenges against the Government's air transport White Paper. The judgment found that the Department for Transport had acted unfairly, that it had withheld some Government evidence and that it had prejudged the planning process, thus blighting people's homes not just in my constituency but in those of a number of other right hon. and hon. Members.
	It was therefore expected that the Secretary of State for Transport would come to the House to make an oral statement, enabling us to question him, but instead all we have been given is a short written statement. Given the hardship caused to people in my constituency and others, and the fact that the court judgment, which runs to more than 109 pages, directly questions Government policy, should hon. Members not also have the chance to question the Minister? Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any indication that the Secretary of State for Transport intends to come to the House to answer for himself and for his rather ragged and incomprehensible Government policy?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has worked within the rules of the House, and it is for me to ensure that the rules that the House has made are applied properly. The hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate, which would allow him to question the Minister, and of course, he could table parliamentary questions.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 14 July 1997, there were points of order about reports that the BBC intended to drop "Yesterday in Parliament", replacing it with some kind of panel discussion. As you will probably recall, as a result of public and parliamentary pressure, the programme was not axed but put on a more limited channel. I raise the point of order again today because it has been reported in the Evening Standard that it is expected that the programme will be dropped. It is true that that is not official, but a kind of softening up exercise is probably taking place so that there will be less controversy when it is dropped.
	I hope that the BBC will reconsider the matter if it is indeed true that it intends to drop the programme. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obligation on the part of a public service broadcasting organisation to report the proceedings of Parliament. The decisions taken here are important to many people. Indeed, the debate referred to in the previous exchanges will surely be important to people who want to hear what is happening in the House of Commons. Will you therefore use your authority as the Speaker of the House of Commons to try to ensure that the programme is not axed and that the BBC recognises its obligation to report Parliament? It always claims that it accepts that obligation, and the last time the subject arose, everyone agreed—there was no controversy—that it should not axe the programme. I hope that you will do what you can to ensure that both the evening programme and the morning programme are retained.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Speaker: First let me answer the hon. Gentleman. I have given before in the House the advice that we should not believe everything that is put in a newspaper. Certain Select Committees of the House can call officials of the BBC and question them on their stewardship. My worry is more about today in Parliament than "Yesterday in Parliament".

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The judgment about the airports White Paper found that the Government's actions had been unlawful because they had not consulted properly on the options for Stansted or consulted at all about the situation at Luton airport. In those circumstances, it would be very helpful for local residents and others to know what the timetable will be for the proper consultations that will now have to take place. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to make an oral statement now that he has already made a written one? Is there any bar to his doing that? Is such a statement possible if, in the light of the comments made, he decides that he wishes to make one?

Mr. Speaker: That might well be in order, but I certainly do not want to be drawn into the argument.

Patrick Cormack: My point of order relates to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said. Would it be possible for you in your capacity as Speaker and spokesman for the House to find out from the chairman of the BBC precisely what is intended?

Mr. Speaker: Once again, let me say that the hon. Member for Walsall, North raised the matter because it was reported in a newspaper. I am not prepared to work on that basis, but there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman raising the matter with the governor of the BBC.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I accept what you said about not believing everything that we read in newspapers, it is unfortunately all too common to read something in newspapers and then be told it in the House of Commons. I read in the newspaper this week that the Government are going to introduce an order in the House to stop the payment of allowances to four Members who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty. That has appeared in the newspapers, but there is nothing on the Order Paper. Would it not have been correct for the House rather than newspaper journalists to have been told first? If it is going to happen, I very much welcome it, but it should have happened a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker: I would prefer it if Ministers came before the House, and I have put that view on the record on many occasions. However, the Leader of the House made the helpful remark that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to come before the House this week. Such questions can be put to him then.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Programme Order of 10th January 2005 in relation to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill be varied as follows:
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following table.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 1; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 2; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 3; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 4. 2 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 5; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 6. 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 7; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 8; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 9; New Clauses, amendments and New Schedules relating to Part 10; remaining New Clauses and New Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion—
	(a)   5 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order; or
	(b)   at the moment of interruption,
	whichever is the later.—[Alun Michael.]

Anne McIntosh: I shall oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible for several reasons. It is not yet 4 o'clock on the day of the week on which the House usually sits until 10 pm, so Conservative Members find it difficult to understand why knives have been imposed that will fall arbitrarily and thus deprive the House of an hour's debate and scrutiny of a Bill on which both we and the Liberal Democrats wish to raise several new issues. We failed to secure the number of Committee sittings that we would have liked, but having lost that argument we gave the Bill the fullest possible scrutiny, while being mindful of the timetable that was imposed on us.
	The most extraordinary thing occurred because the usual channels were not followed as rigorously as is normal on this occasion. As the walk-on speaking part, I was called on to agree with the usual channels about when the knives should fall. I am sure that the usual channels will not want that to happen in future. An even more extraordinary event occurred because my office today received a faxed copy of a letter from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who will lead for the Government, and although the time on the fax said that it was received at 16.25 on 21 February, the House will note that it is not yet that time. I then received a hard copy of the same letter in my hand at 3.40 pm, which was only just before we started our proceedings on the Bill. The letter informed me of why the Government have drafted several amendments that were tabled at the last possible moment—Thursday last week.
	I do not wish to eat into any more time, but we deplore the Government's rather shabby behaviour because we thought that we had achieved a good working relationship and co-operation, given the circumstances. On a positive note, I am delighted that we have stirred the Government into action and that they have recognised that there are failures in the Bill, as we consistently stated on Second Reading and in Committee. We shall continue to point them out today. As I said, we will oppose the programme motion as vigorously as possible.

Alun Michael: May I respond to one or two points made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)? We extended the time available in Committee after discussions through the usual channels, but she struggled to fill that time. Indeed, she had to speak about all sorts of things, such as the long title of the Bill, the short title and who had printed documents, so that she could drag out proceedings.
	The hon. Lady's problem is that her party does not understand the Bill or why we want to tackle the issues with which it deals, such as litter, graffiti and other problems that degrade local neighbourhoods. That is why most of the time available on Second Reading was taken up by 18 Labour Members who spoke with authority about the way in which the degradation of local environments affects their constituencies. Only two Conservative Back Benchers spoke, and neither sounded authoritative or convinced about the points that they were making.
	The hon. Lady referred to the usual channels, but as far as I could see, they worked with their usual efficiency and co-operated to ensure that there was the opportunity for Conservative Members and for the hon. Lady to have an input on the timetable. The letter that she mentioned was finally drafted and completed to my satisfaction little more than an hour ago. I brought copies to the House to put on the Letter Board and delivered a copy personally to the hon. Lady, after having faxed an advance copy to her office. It is rather strange that rather than welcoming such courtesy, she uses it as an opportunity to make a critical point. I would have thought that that was a trifle ungracious.
	We have debated in Committee a Bill of enormous importance to constituents who are represented by Labour Members. However, Conservative Members do not understand it. They even said on Second Reading that the Bill was about urban, not rural, issues. They should tell that to all the farmers who complain about fly-tipping on their land or the cars that are left on their land that must be disposed of. The Bill deals with problems that are important to both urban and rural constituents, so we should move on to debate such issues rather than trying to find piddling excuses to delay the House's proceedings, as the hon. Lady has done.

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of the Bill but against the programme motion. However, the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said something that concerned me. She suggested that if we agree to the programme motion, we will lose one hour of the time usually allowed for debate. My reading of the motion is that we can go to 10 o'clock. Will you confirm that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Derek Conway: The Minister responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in his usual robust manner. I was one of those who spoke on Second Reading and who made, according to him, an ill-informed contribution. Whether he meant my contribution I am not sure, but I was chief executive of the largest animal welfare charity in Britain, so I understand a bit more about the care of strays than even he does.

Patrick McLoughlin: As far as the Minister is concerned, the fact that my hon. Friend has experience means that he is ill-informed.

Derek Conway: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman spoke on one clause of a wide-ranging and important Bill. Although he spoke with authority, it meant that 50 per cent. of the contributions by Conservative Members was directed at only one clause.

Derek Conway: I am glad to accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology, which was given in his usual charming way.
	Having contributed on that specific matter on Second Reading, I could not serve on the Standing Committee—which I wanted to do to press the Minister further—because as a member of the Chairmen's Panel I was next door chairing the Identity Cards Bill, which was in equally invigorating session. What concerns me about the programme motion, on which I hope my hon. Friends divide the House, is where the knives are placed.
	I want to question the Minister on amendment No. 11, which deals with dogs. Less than 45 minutes was spent on that subject in Committee. Obviously, I had no opportunity to press him in that forum. Some of my hon. Friends—I note that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), is in the Chamber—have made the point in timetabling debates that not all hon. Members can serve on Standing Committees. If they have duties on other Committees or elsewhere in the House, it is the remaining stages of a Bill's consideration that enable any Member, with the agreement of the Chair, to press the Minister on the detail.
	There is no objection to what the Government propose on the matter, and I hope that we will debate it with your consent, Mr. Speaker, but I am concerned that the motion will prevent us from getting to the amendment. Given the time that the Government are allowing for the discussion of the remaining stages, I am not convinced that we will get to it. There may be no time to discuss what happens to the 140,000 stray dogs, which the Committee could consider for only 45 minutes.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend's tenure running the Cats Protection League is rightly celebrated the length and breadth of the land. It certainly qualifies him to contribute at length to our proceedings. As an experienced parliamentarian, does he agree that in trying to explain our opposition to programme motions to the widest audience, it is important to underline to the public that with 44 new clauses and amendments, and only 240 minutes in total in which to do so—assuming, rather unimaginably, there are no votes—the logic is obvious? There is only roughly five minutes for consideration of each amendment. It is manifestly inadequate and an insult to the House of Commons.

Derek Conway: My hon. Friend makes a superb point, as always. He also makes a reasonable point. People are not saying that all parts of the Bill are dreadful. I am not saying that although I have a predilection for cat welfare, I do not support the dog welfare charities, and I had a great deal to do with them through the industry arrangements. However, when we reach the relevant part of the Bill, I want to press the Minister on the practicalities of his proposals because the Committee did not have time to do that.
	I do not object to the proposals. I hope to support what the Minister is trying to do. There is no party political principle involved in the care of stray dogs. There is no magical Conservative, Labour or Liberal solution to what we do with stray animals. However, we are entitled to press the Government on whether the dramatic changes to the care of what are often violent stray dogs—10 per cent. are out of control—will work. The discussions that I have had with vested interests suggest that it will not do so. Therefore, we should have the opportunity to put such points. I predict that, because of the timetable motion that the Government have put before the House, we will not be able to do so.
	The groups outside this building that will have to do the dirty work for us—the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and, more importantly, the dog wardens who have grave doubts about the proposals, as the Minister knows—will want to know what the hot words said in this Chamber will mean on the cold nights across Britain if the proposals become law, as I am sure the Government will ensure. It is a great pity that the Minister has guillotined proceedings on the Bill in this way, and it is a pity that those of us who were unable to serve on the Standing Committee will not have an opportunity to press him further. If for whatever reason we do get a few minutes during the course of the evening, I hope to press him on whether his practical solutions will really work for the benefit of the dogs of Great Britain.

Nicholas Winterton: My contribution to the debate on this programme motion will be very brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) made some valuable points. If I may, I shall speak in my capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I am deeply concerned that the time limits on debate imposed by programme motions are preventing Members from undertaking their duties on behalf of the constituents who sent them here. The remaining stages of a Bill are the only occasions during the legislative process when Members of whatever party should have an automatic right to be called.
	I accept what the Minister said—this is important legislation. It affects people not only in urban areas but in rural areas. Is it right that people such as my hon. Friend, who have expertise in this area and who would like a greater opportunity to express their views, are prevented because of a programme motion from doing so? There are Members on both sides of the House who have heavy responsibilities and cannot always be in Standing Committee when a clause, new clause or amendment is debated.
	Will the Minister take back to the powers that be—the Leader of the House and the usual channels—the message that further consideration should be given to the needs of Back Benchers, who should have an opportunity to have an input during remaining stages? The Procedure Committee which I chair has made recommendations which the Government have, at this stage, not seen fit to accept. I believe that the House will review the situation relating to programming. My hon. Friend has made a good point, so please let us allow Members to make a contribution. The remaining stages of a Bill are the only period during its passage when Members should be guaranteed the ability so to contribute.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to have caught your eye in this very short debate, Mr. Speaker, and I shall keep my contribution brief. My hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Conway) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) have admirably illustrated the point that these timetable motions are beginning to set a precedent. We find ourselves with too little time in Standing Committee, where debates are guillotined so that certain bits of a Bill are not discussed, and we find exactly the same thing on Report and Third Reading. Too much timetabling and too tight a guillotine on clauses can mean that the Government completely control what and what is not debated at all stages of a Bill. What are we sent here for? We are sent here to debate Bills and to try to amend them on behalf of our constituents. If we are not able to do that, there is very little point in our coming here. A pattern is forming.
	This timetable is worse than usual. We might have four hours for debate on Report, yet there is a very tight guillotine on Third Reading, so issues such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred will not be debated and there will be no opportunity to amend the Bill. In the old days, Mr. Speaker, you would have selected what is debated on Third Reading, but the new guillotines and knives mean that you do not have that opportunity. That is an unfortunate precedent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and you must look into.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 116.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Gating Orders

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 3, line 3, at end insert
	'save with the agreement of the owner and occupier of any such dwelling.'.
	For the benefit of the House, may I take this opportunity to mention my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests in regard to the Royal Automobile Club? I should also like to mention that I own a modest amount of shares, which are not registrable, in BT and a number of individual company personal equity plans and individual savings accounts in utility companies. In my spare time, I am also undertaking a placement with Network Rail, which has been of great interest.
	Speaking to amendment No. 28 gives me the opportunity to mention a loophole in the Bill that came to our attention after the Committee stage. We hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the Government will look favourably on inserting into clause 2 the provision that
	"the agreement of the owner and occupier of any such dwelling"
	should be taken into account in regard to certain gating orders. This relates to issues raised by farm owners and landowners and, in particular, to concerns raised by the Country Land and Business Association—the CLA.

Ann Coffey: Given that the hon. Lady has been complaining of insufficient time to scrutinise the Bill, will she tell us why there are no Conservative Back Benchers present to scrutinise it?

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, but I am afraid that she is treading on thin ice. Bearing in mind the huge—and short-lived—majority of Labour Members, I must point out that only one or two of her colleagues are on the Labour Benches at the moment, so she might regret making that remark. Also, Conservative reinforcements are arriving as we speak.
	The amendment would add flexibility in regard to when gating orders could be made, and would allow for them to be made if the owner and occupier of the dwelling in question agreed—[Laughter.]

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady seems unaware of what has just happened behind her. The empty Conservative Back Benches were occupied briefly by a Conservative Member, who entered stage left and walked all the way to stage right before going straight out of the Chamber, so captivated was he by her words. I remind her that 18 Labour MPs spoke vigorously in support of the Bill on Second Reading. They felt that it was the right Bill because of all the discussions that we have had with everybody about how effective it will be. But I must allow the hon. Lady to get on with her scrutiny.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. Perhaps if there were fewer interruptions of that low level, the level of scrutiny might be greater.
	The Bill as drafted does not allow gating orders, and the associated barriers, to be put in place on a route that forms the principal means of access to a dwelling. In our view, and that of the CLA, that is simply too restrictive. In many cases, the persons most in need of a barrier are those who live in a dwelling and suffer from persistent crime and antisocial behaviour because of the access available on that right of way. Once made, the gating orders will be flexible and need not prohibit access completely. The amendment would add flexibility in this regard, and would allow for a gating order to be made when the owner of the dwelling agreed to it. I submit that this would be a minor but beneficial improvement, and that it addresses some of the points put to us that we did not have the opportunity to raise in Committee.

Alun Michael: On the face of it, I suppose it might seem not unreasonable for residents to agree to curtail their own access, but they would also be curtailing access for a wide range of others who may have a legitimate purpose for having access. For instance, this proposal could hamper the delivery of mail and of other services for which providing access keys might not be practical.
	The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) says that she was briefed on this concern by the CLA, but I have to say that the CLA has not raised it with me, although I speak to it regularly. The legislation is intended to provide for gating back and side alleys to deal with problems that have been experienced in inner urban areas. It is not intended to provide for gating the principal means of access.
	I see the purpose of proposed new section 129B(4) as ensuring that the legislation is not used for purposes for which it is not intended. For that reason, I suggest that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.

Anne McIntosh: With some disappointment, we learn that the Minister does not seem to have grasped the reasonable points that we made and is unable to offer the assurance we seek. However, I am sure that there will be opportunities—when the Secretary of State introduces regulations, for example—for the CLA to be consulted further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Abandoned vehicles

'In the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3), after section 2 (offence of unauthorised abandonment of vehicles etc.) insert—
	"(1)   A vehicle shall be deemed to be abandoned if—
	(a)   there are recent observations or evidence regarding its inactivity;
	(b)   there has been no activity regarding it on the DVLA's database for a continuous period of 5 years;
	(c)   the number plates and Vehicle Identification Number have been removed;
	(d)   no Statutory Off Road Notification has ever been notified and recorded on its DVLA record;
	(e)   the vehicle is burnt out;
	(f)   the vehicle is deemed to have no value; or
	(g)   the vehicle is a hazard."'. —[Miss McIntosh.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 5, line 41, leave out
	'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.
	Government amendment No. 24.
	Amendment No. 13, in clause 4, page 6, line 18, leave out
	'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 6, line 26, leave out
	'he proves to the satisfaction of the court that.'.
	Government amendment No. 25.

Anne McIntosh: For the benefit of the House, I should say in discussing this little group that I wish to press amendment No. 12 to a vote.
	In a moment, I shall say how amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are linked. First, however, I urge the Minister to look sympathetically on new clause 6. We believe it is important to have a definition of an abandoned vehicle, but—strangely, in the circumstances relating to this part of the Bill—there is no such definition. Indeed, there is no such definition anywhere in the legislation, nor is there a definition of a vehicle fit for destruction.
	In 2002–03, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions consulted on proposals to speed up abandoned car removal. That mainly involved shortening the statutory notice periods—15 days on private land and seven on a highway. The consultation resulted in no action, and it was generally understood that that was because of the concern expressed about historic and restorable vehicles, particularly in relation to when people were away on business or on holiday.
	There were also understood to be Human Rights Act 1998 concerns about the right to property and whether the rules were widely enough understood. Concern was also expressed that many local authorities had difficulties in assessing vehicles and judging them to be abandoned. There were calls, albeit by the DTLR in its consultation, for a statutory definition and guidance.
	Many local authorities were concerned about having to pay compensation, although it was suggested that motor trade assessors could be used to estimate value. Other concerns involved value, what is personal value, what is market value and how those should be defined.
	Since that consultation, many local authorities have established links to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. Indeed, some are using the DVLA's untaxed removal powers, which is probably the best way forward. A definition of abandoned vehicles has been difficult to get to grips with, but it was felt that this was the right time to have a go. On the criteria in relation to what should establish a definition, a vehicle shall be deemed to be abandoned if a number of factors are in place: recent observations; evidence relating to its inactivity; no activity regarding it on the DVLA's database for five years, such as road tax or statutory keeper listings; all identifying features, number plates and vehicle identification number removed.

Edward Davey: So that I may understand the hon. Lady's new clause better, will she say whether an abandoned vehicle will have to meet all those criteria or just one to be deemed to be abandoned? What consultation has she had with respect to her proposed definition? Has she taken advice from the Local Government Association, for example, or others who would have to implement this definition?

Anne McIntosh: I am not disclosing a secret by saying that the Automobile Association provided that definition, and it has had several discussions and followed closely how effectively it would be implemented. There would be no point in having a definition that did not work in practice. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that point.
	Not all the criteria would have to be met, but they are indicative criteria. The two most useful would probably be statutory off-road notification, which is the official declaration that a vehicle will not be used on the public highway—every vehicle in normal circumstances must be taxed or have been given SORN, as being in limbo or any other status is simply not permissible—and the vehicle identification number. The VIN is unique to each vehicle, marked on its engine—concealed on the chassis, I am told—and gives more information than simple registration numbers. It is therefore important to have a definition. That follows up the loophole that has been found.
	Other criteria include: all identification features have been removed, including the number plates and VIN; no SORN has ever been notified and recorded on the DVLA record; the vehicle is burnt out; the vehicle is deemed to have no value, which could be verified by the official motor trade estimate; and the vehicle is a hazard or a danger.
	I hope that the Minister will look favourably on new clause 6. Any one of those criteria would be helpful in determining the status of a vehicle as abandoned. The Minister must see the difficulties that the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions got into by failing to have a definition of an abandoned vehicle. This definition is put forward in the same spirit of co-operation as was demonstrated throughout the Committee stage.
	I now come to amendments Nos. 12 to 14. Amendment No. 12 relates to clause 3 and touches on one of the most sensitive and contentious parts of the Bill, which time did not permit us to reach in Committee—the imposition of a reverse burden of proof on exposing vehicles for sale on a road. We would prefer to reverse that by removing the offending words,
	"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that".
	Historically, in England and Wales and in Scotland, in law, it has normally been the case that a party is innocent until proved guilty. This provision reverses that presumption and puts the onus on the accused to prove his innocence. That reverses one of the most fundamental tenets of English law, and we take a grave view of it.

Edward Davey: I have looked at the amendment and tried to work out what is behind it. I cannot agree with the hon. Lady, although hers would be a serious charge if it were justified. Surely a court would have to decide whether a person was guilty under clause 3(1) first, and clause 3(2) merely provides an extra protection for an innocent person. There is no change from the basic legal presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". I think that what the hon. Lady has said represents a misreading of the clause.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman may not have had time to consider the clause to the extent that we have.
	Paragraph 303 of the Government's explanatory notes, on page 47, refers to the court case. I understand from a radio interview in which I took part yesterday that there is already a legal precedent, although I do not know whether it relates to the court case in question. As I have said, we take a serious view of any removal of the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty". Paragraph 303 states:
	"The Bill contains a number of new reverse burdens of proof (which means that, to take advantage of a defence provided, the accused is required to demonstrate his innocence once the prosecution has proved certain facts, rather than the prosecution being required to prove the accused's guilt on all issues)."
	That is a classic definition of reverse burden of proof.
	"A reverse burden can be legal,"
	the Government argue,
	"where the burden is on the accused to prove that the defence applies to him on a balance of probabilities, or evidential, where the accused must bring sufficient evidence for the defence to be an issue, and then the prosecution must disprove the defence."
	The Minister may be able to refer to other cases, but paragraph 304 tells us—I challenge this in amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14—that reverse burdens enjoy a lawfulness confirmed, in the Government's view, by the House of Lords in the cases of Sheldrake in 2004 and R v. Johnstone in 2003,
	"where the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offence and the overall effect is that the accused has a fair trial, and the reverse burden is reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on reverse burdens in AG'S REFERENCE (no 1 of 2004 . . . The European Court of Human Rights has recognised that reverse burdens are lawful in SALABIAKU V FRANCE (1988) . . . and PHILLIPS V UK if the overall presumption of innocence is maintained."
	I realise that we are not in court now, but I would argue that the presumption of innocence is overruled in the event of reverse burden of proof.
	"The Government believes that the reverse burdens contained in the Bill are within those criteria and seek to promote the general interest of environmental protection. The Government therefore concludes that the new provisions are compatible with Convention rights."
	Let me say at this early stage, before the Bill goes to another place, that I believe that the reverse burden of proof has no place in environmental crimes—not that Conservative Members do not accept the seriousness of such crimes, and the frequency with which they are committed. We believe that in a free and fair society and in accordance with the terms of natural justice, there should be no place for a reverse burden of proof.
	Amendment No. 13 extends that criterion to clause 4, which deals with repairing vehicles on a road. We propose to leave out the offending words
	"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that",
	and revert to the presumption that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty. Amendment No. 14 does the same.

Edward Davey: I am a new boy to these proceedings as I did not serve on the Committee, unlike the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the Minister and one or two other Members present. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has been detained, so I have taken his place. However, it was with great interest that I prepared for this debate, read Hansard reports of proceedings in Committee and listened to the hon. Member for Vale of York. [Interruption.] Others doubtless also read those reports with great interest.
	In principle, the hon. Lady is on to something with new clause 6. I replied to the Government consultation on abandoned vehicles. I do not often reply formally, as a constituency MP, to such consultations, but abandoned vehicles have been a huge problem in my constituency, where we have been pressing the Government to act for some time. Although that consultation was conducted several years ago, it was an important move and it led to some significant changes. In the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, initiatives taken at local level, along with some of the policy changes supported by the Government, have had a major impact in terms of clearing up abandoned vehicles. It was a good consultation, which moved the game forward. The question is: can we go further through the Bill and the new clause?
	I agree with the intention behind the hon. Lady's proposal, in that we may well need the benefit of a stricter definition of what counts as an abandoned vehicle. The question is whether she and the AA have produced that definition. On reading it, I am not convinced that she has done so, although I congratulate her on trying. The new clause would lead to two problems. It could prove too weak in some cases by failing to catch some vehicles that are actually abandoned, and prove too strong in others by catching vehicles that have not been abandoned, the lawful owners still having the right to their property. Therefore, there is a danger that the new clause will result in the worst of all possible worlds. I should emphasise that that does not mean that the Government should not try to come up with a suitable definition, perhaps in another place.
	In Committee, the Minister said that local authority officers who have to implement such legislation can understand the wording of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which has been clarified through case law. He made a fair point, and it has proven difficult for the AA and the hon. Lady to produce a definition that covers all circumstances. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister is prepared to examine this matter again, and to see whether we can go further than the 1978 Act.
	The hon. Lady has just spoken to amendments Nos.12, 13 and 14 and, as I suggested in my intervention, I have some problems with them. She is worried about removing the presumption of innocence. As far as I can see, the Bill and clause 3 do not do that, except in respect of fixed penalty notices.

Nigel Evans: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed our proceedings in Committee and I hope that the Hansard reports have captured the excitement of them. However, he should look at clause 3, which includes the phrase
	"if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he was not acting for the purposes of a business of selling motor vehicles."
	Normally, it would be up to the courts to prove that that was what such a person was doing. To achieve the same end, surely all that we need to do is to drop the phrase
	"he proves to the satisfaction of the court that",
	as suggested in our amendment.

Edward Davey: I am more than happy to admit that I might have misunderstood, but that is the whole point of this debate: to scrutinise legislation.
	It seems to me that the presumption of innocence is taken away with respect to fixed penalty notices, which is the whole point about fixed penalty notices. However, on clause 3, we are talking not about fixed penalty notices but about a court's decision to levy a fine if there has been an appeal. If a case comes before a court, I presume that it will look at it afresh.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman talks about removing the presumption of guilt, but he just said that a person was to be "convicted" of an offence, if it were proven, under clause 3(2),
	"to the satisfaction of the court that he was . . . acting for the purposes of a business of selling motor vehicles."
	There is no reverse presumption, but the provision has the same effect.

Edward Davey: My point is that the fixed penalty notice provisions in this and other parts of the Bill remove the presumption of innocence, but that clause 3(2), which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) are so concerned about, offers extra protection for the innocent person. It provides them with a plea at the court, if the matter goes that far. I repeat my initial point that there has been some misunderstanding of the drafting. Everyone in the House would, presumably, agree with the hon. Lady that removing the presumption of innocence before a court would be wrong, but I do not know whether the Conservatives are now against all fixed penalty notices in all circumstances. If so, that is an interesting development, but I had assumed that previously they were not. We are discussing the only removal of the presumption of innocence that appears in the Bill. We understand the hon. Lady's concerns, but if she presses her amendments to the vote, we would have to dissent because we do not believe that her analysis is correct.
	I wholeheartedly welcome Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25, because similar amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow in Committee and the Minister undertook to reconsider the points that he made, particularly those relating to whether the fines should move up a category from level 3 to level 4 in order to assist proper prosecution and to act as a sufficient deterrent to persistent offenders. Clearly, the Government have reflected on what my hon. Friend said, so I am sure that he is proud of his influence on the Minister and glad that the Government amendments have been tabled.
	The Government amendments and other provisions are very important, but hon. Members will know from their constituencies that when car selling or car repair businesses are set up in communities, they can cause a huge nuisance and great offence to those communities. The Government are right to tackle that problem, and they have our full support. I know of a number of streets and areas in my constituency that have been subject to massive disruption and great inconvenience by such businesses. Vehicles can often take up empty spaces on roads when parking is scarce, and the noise and pollution generated by those businesses are additional problems. The Government are right to act.
	Clause 3(1)(a) makes it clear that a person is guilty of an offence if
	"he leaves two or more motor vehicles parked on the same road".
	Having read the explanatory notes and the Committee debate, I wonder whether the terms of that provision might be somewhat restrictive. I know of areas in my constituency that have suffered because a local person has caused great problems by selling or repairing vehicles on two or three adjoining roads. I understand why the phrase "on the same road" has been used, but its terms could be too restrictive for some communities. I am not asking the Minister to promise tonight that he will amend the provision, but I would be grateful if he reflected further on it. As I said, in parts of my constituency, the current provision would not deal with the problem that the Minister wants to solve.

Alun Michael: I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) as a fresh face to our consideration of the Bill. I also welcome the fact that he has engaged with these issues from a constituency point of view, which is what most of my hon. Friends did on Second Reading and in Committee.
	I was rather surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did not have time in Committee to investigate one or two points. I recall, and comments were made by various members of the Committee, that the hon. Lady had all the time in the world while every clause was debated to the exhaustion of those listening, so I am surprised that she feels that she did not have enough time. She was absent on one day and if that is what she meant, it was not lack of time that defeated her, but the need to be elsewhere.
	The hon. Lady claims that the AA supports her new clause 6, but that is surprising because the AA has not contacted me as a Minister, nor as one of its members. I thought that I should declare my membership, although it is not a substantial interest under the provisions of the House.
	Put simply, new clause 6 is unnecessary. Plenty of guidance is available to local authorities, not least from ENCAMS and the Local Government Association, as well as from their own experience, on the characteristics to take into account when deciding whether a vehicle has been abandoned. Such a definition is not necessary in the Bill. Legislation leaves the decision on whether a vehicle has been abandoned to local authority discretion. Specifying criteria would remove councils' flexibility, so this appears to be another example of the old-fashioned Stalinism that seems to be rampant in the Conservative party. More seriously, it would fly in the face of experience. The fact is that local authorities have rarely been challenged on any decision concerning abandonment. My advice to the hon. Lady is, "If it ain't broke, don't look for ways to fix it."

Edward Davey: During the Government's consultation, the main practical problem seemed to be deciding whether the car was merely untaxed and, therefore, a matter for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, or abandoned and, therefore, a matter for the local authority or the police. Does the Minister have any comments on that aspect of definition and whether greater clarity is required?

Alun Michael: Clearly, deciding whether a vehicle is abandoned is one issue. Vehicles are not considered to have been abandoned if they are taxed and the Bill will help with that. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that was one obstacle. Others include the length of time a car has been left and so on. Those are the sort of issues that we are tackling in the Bill.
	Detailed considerations such as those set out in new clause 6, as opposed to the sort of issue that the hon. Gentleman pointed out, are not appropriate for primary legislation. Clause 13 requires local authorities to have regard, when carrying out their functions under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, to guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. If necessary, the new provision can be used to put the current guidance on a statutory footing.
	On amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, it is a matter of fact and practical experience that local authorities have had great difficulty in proving that someone is acting in the course of a business when a transaction occurs in the street. The offence of exposing for sale specifically covers two or more vehicles because we want to make it clear that we are targeting rogue traders, not private sellers. The offence relates to two or more vehicles being advertised for sale on the same road, which would suggest the presence of a business venture, so the burden of proof should be on the defendant. In the unlikely case of a private seller selling two or more vehicles at the same time, it would be easy for them to prove with DVLA documentation that the vehicles were registered in their own or their family's name and that it was coincidence that they were being sold at the same time. The burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities.
	The clause provides a clear line of defence if there is prima facie evidence of an offence, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. It is a line of defence more than a reverse burden even if, technically, it is a reverse burden to some extent. The first part of the clause as drafted indicates what amounts to a person being guilty of the offence. They must be shown to have left
	"two or more  . . . vehicles parked on the same road where they are exposed or advertised for sale"
	or to have caused that to happen.
	Subsection (2), on the other hand, provides the defence that someone who is not a trader can bring forward. If the words are removed, as proposed, that defence would be rendered meaningless as a person would not have to prove that it applied in their case. I suggest that the proposals would render nonsense the legislation as drafted.
	I shall now explain Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which, you will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support and want added to the Bill. Cars sold on the road through commercial businesses can cause problems and annoyance for ordinary people and a significant blight on an area. Cars repaired on the road can take up valuable parking spaces, look unsightly and pollute the local environment. The amendments are minor but important and would raise the maximum penalty for offences of nuisance parking to ensure consistency and to bring them in line with other environmental offences.
	As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) tabled a similar amendment in Committee, and I undertook to consider the points that they made in discussion. Having done so, I have proposed the amendments. The maximum fine for other environmental offences, such as abandoning a vehicle or littering, is level 4, so they are appropriate.
	I urge hon. Members to withdraw their new clause and amendments and to accept our amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which I commend to the House.

Anne McIntosh: I have listened carefully to the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), in his debut performance on the Bill, made some interesting comments and I am sure that they were meant to be constructive.
	The Minister will appreciate that I received his note only 40 minutes before the beginning of the programme motion, but we have a difficulty with the reverse burden of proof. We are not unsympathetic to his amendments, which would raise the maximum penalty for nuisance parking offences under clauses 3 and 4. However, it was unfortunate that the Minister did not have the benefit of participating in the radio programme yesterday. I, too, value my Sundays and I do not often take part in live radio programmes on that day, but if the Minister had done so he would have appreciated the public's growing concern that the Government are increasingly using fixed penalty notices for a number of offences. Under these clauses they are introducing fixed penalty notices for an environmental crime—nuisance parking—and if the amendments are accepted the maximum penalty will be increased. As a lawyer, albeit non-practising, I find that an unhappy situation.
	In Committee, I pressed the Minister about the level of evidence. It was against that background that we provided the definition in new clause 6 for the level of evidence needed to prove that someone had committed that type of environmental crime. The Minister was not forthcoming in Committee and I am not entirely satisfied with his explanations this afternoon. The situation is deeply unacceptable. The defence against a fixed penalty notice will be seriously weakened and people will have to go to court.

Alun Michael: I am trying to follow the point that the hon. Lady is making. If we are talking about interruptions to Sundays, perhaps I should say that I was able to make the point on "Countryfile" yesterday about how important the Bill will be to people who live in rural areas. However, I do not quite follow her point that there is no defence against fixed penalty notices. If people do not like the fixed penalty notice, they do not have to pay the penalty, but they must then go court and marshal their defence at that point. I am not sure what point she is making. Many people have been affected by the sort of evils that are addressed in the clauses and they want them to be tackled vigorously. Surely the hon. Lady agrees with them.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to give us other cases where such a reverse burden of proof applies. We would find that very helpful.

Alun Michael: I have made the point to the hon. Lady already that these provisions relate to how people can present a defence if there is a prima facie case, not to any reverse burden, which is an inappropriate term to use, although it may be technically correct. These provisions are intended to ensure that people who are not guilty of undertaking the sort of commercial activities that cause the problem are able to demonstrate that they are innocent of the offence.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister uses an unfortunate expression. He should be mindful of the fact that the Government have used such a term at great length in the explanatory notes.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that, although it may be true that the defence is not useable until a court case takes place because someone eventually says, "This is unfair, so I'll go to court", the nature of that defence may have a real effect on the occasions on which and the care with which people issue fixed penalty notices? The worry about fixed penalty notices is that, if they are issued willy-nilly, people are put in an extremely difficult position in deciding whether they should go through all the hassle of going to court and many people will therefore give way. We want to ensure that fixed penalty notices are not issued without due care, and I understand that that is what new clause 6 is supposed to do.

Anne McIntosh: My right hon. Friend puts our case so much more eloquently than I have done. Indeed, that is precisely the point that was made in Committee and to which we allude in this little group of amendments.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: I wish to answer this point.
	We do not know for sure who will issue the fixed penalty notices. Even with community support officers or the police issuing the notices, public concern has been growing about some of the high-handed tactics used and the lack of training given. The Minister will recall that we raised the issue in Committee about precisely what level of local authority official may be able to issue the notices and what specific training they would be given because, although the crime is considerable, level 4 penalties are substantial.
	I am mindful of the time, the guillotine and the fact that there will be an opportunity to press the issue in another place, so following this exchange of views, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Exposing vehicles for sale on a road

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 6, line 2, leave out '3' and insert '4'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Repairing vehicles on a road

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 6, line 34, leave out '3' and insert '4'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter

'In section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A)   The appropriate person may by regulations make provision about the standards to which persons must keep land clear of litter under subsection (1) above in respect of different kinds of litter.
	(4B)   In particular, such regulations may make particular provision about discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing."'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—Street litter: chewing gum—
	'After section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) insert—
	"93A   Street litter: chewing gum
	(1)   The appropriate person shall consult litter authorities and other persons and bodies as he thinks appropriate regarding—
	(a)   the most effective methods for removing discarded chewing gum and the remains of discarded chewing gum, and
	(b)   how producers and consumers may be made jointly responsible for the disposal of discarded chewing gum and the remains of discarded chewing gum
	and shall publish the results of that consultation.
	(2)   The appropriate person shall implement policies to increase public awareness of the penalties for the illegal disposal of chewing gum.".'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 18, page 14, line 40, at end insert
	', subject to subsection (4) below.
	(4)   But land adjacent to or in the vicinity of railways, railway carriages and buses shall be deemed to be open to public access for the purposes of this Part.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Anne McIntosh: New clause 2 elaborates a duty in section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to keep land and highways clear of litter. It would make specific provision for the Secretary of State to issue regulations to establish standards in respect of discarded chewing gum different from those that apply to other litter. It would allow for the subsequent consultation of local authorities and others about the proposed regulations. Those regulations and the consultation on them would provide an opportunity for consideration and discussion of the costs of gum clear-up, and of the standards that realistically could be achieved.
	We discussed clause 27 at some length in Committee. For the first time, the definition of "litter" covers discarded chewing-gum, the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing—I presume that means bubble gum—and the discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products. One of the clause's perceived benefits is that it would strengthen the ability of local authorities to enforce the provision making the discarding of gum a fixed penalty litter offence. We have had numerous discussions with Westminster city council, whose record on the clearing of litter is second to none. In its view, the discarding of chewing gum is rarely seen, and the scope for applying fixed penalties for litter offences to this problem is slim. One of the problems is being able to identify the point at which chewing gum is discarded.
	New clause 10 would insert a new section 93A in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That would be a positive step in bringing all parties together to look at more imaginative, socially responsible and environmentally friendly ways of disposing of gum. With a general election not too far away, we hope, as an aspiring Government, to work with producers and consumers to consider ways of introducing biodegradable gum and wrapping paper. The thrust of the new clause is very much in that spirit. We would work with relevant parties, including the litter authorities and such other persons and bodies as the Secretary of State thought fit, to consider
	"the most effective methods for removing discarded chewing gum and the remains of discarded chewing gum".
	The House will recall that the Government spent £60,000 to study the ways in which people dispose of chewing gum, but they were unable to come up with a best means of removing it. We believe that all parties could work on this together, and we would like to see how producers and consumers could be made jointly responsible for the disposal of discarded chewing gum and its remains. The results of the consultation would be published.
	The Secretary of State would also implement policies to increase public awareness of the penalties for the illegal disposal of chewing gum. It is all very well having fixed penalty notices, but this is very much a matter of educating and informing people, in particular schoolchildren. That is the right way forward. We await the Minister's response with interest, but it is my intention to press new clause 2 to a vote.
	Amendment 3 is to clause 18, and would mean that
	"land adjacent to or in the vicinity of railways, railways carriages and buses shall be deemed to be open to public access for the purposes of this Part."
	The public pass close to such land and they throw litter on to it. The amount of litter thrown, and the costs to the railway undertakings, are substantial. We hope that the Minister is inclined to look sympathetically on the amendment.
	Clause 18 provides for the extension of litter-dropping offences to land to which there is public access. It appears to be a weaker proposal than that set out in the "Clean Neighbourhoods" consultation that took place in July 2004, which seemed to envisage that such offences would be extended to all land without caveat. We were thus surprised that the Bill excluded land to which the public do not have access, including boarded-off or fenced-off land adjacent to railways that is maintained by such bodies as Tube Lines and Network Rail. It would clearly be beneficial to them if amendment No. 3 were adopted and the caveat removed.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help me by explaining why she thinks that the Government have specifically excluded such undertakings? It is difficult to expect private people to carry through such obligations when they see that they do not apply to other areas. Some of the filthiest places that impinge on the eye of the beholder are those along railway lines and close to railway stations.

Anne McIntosh: I would like to help my right hon. Friend, but I have great difficulty in doing so. The consultation process that took place in July 2004—prior to the Bill's publication—led private undertakings, including Tube Lines and Network Rail, to understand that land on which the public do not walk, but on which they tend to throw litter, would be covered.
	The problem is extremely costly. Trains must often be stopped so that tracks on which litter has been thrown may be accessed. The cost of a train being delayed by an hour while litter is picked up is £25,200. However, there would be a multiplying effect if trains had to be stopped during peak time. If a London terminal station had to be closed for eight hours for such a purpose, it could lead to a cost of more than £2 million. There is great concern about the problem. Network Rail recommended during consultation on the Bill that local authorities should only as a last resort serve notice to enable such private undertakings to access tracks, and even then, only at the safest and most cost-efficient times.
	These are not just probing amendments. We hope to elicit from the Government an assurance that such private undertakings will be put in a much stronger position, especially as envisaged under amendment No. 3. The private companies understood that they had been given certain assurances at the time of the consultation process, so we hope that the Bill will reflect that. Clearing such litter is extremely expensive, and the safety aspect of the procedure must be considered given the proximity of litter to tracks and trains. Transport operators think that they are the victims of antisocial behaviour, because it is the travelling public who tend to throw rubbish on the railway. Not only private companies such as Tube Lines and Network Rail, but bodies such as the London Transport Users Committee, are appealing to the House to support the amendment.
	We could have gone further and asked for vehicles to be included under the scope of the provision, and perhaps the Minister will comment on Government amendments that relate to the exclusion of buses. We especially wish to press new clause 2 to a Division.

Linda Gilroy: I declare an interest as someone who chews gum, as someone who has a large number of constituents who work for Wrigley's, the main manufacturer of gum, and as someone who shares the exasperation caused by litter, including the inappropriate disposal of gum. I want to see an end to that as much as anyone does.
	Understandably, people get hot under the collar about the impact of carelessly thrown gum. If we are serious about finding a solution, we need to ask why other European countries do not have the same problem, although their people chew as much gum as ours do. The simple answer is that other countries' citizens do not chuck their gum away in the way that some of our citizens do.
	The chewing gum action group, convened by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has been meeting for just over 12 months. Wrigley's plays an active part in that. Through something that the group calls segmentation research, which the Standing Committee considered, it has discovered that people who cause that nuisance do so for a variety of reasons. Gum disposal psychology could form the basis of an interesting debate, but as I only want to make a short contribution, I shall resist that temptation.
	We are beginning to understand a lot about responsible gum disposal. As with most things, a blend of carrot and stick has an impact on that, which is why clarification of gum as litter and stronger enforcement of fines have an important, but perhaps modest, part to play in dealing with the difficulty.
	The chewing gum action group is preparing to launch a campaign based on what has been learned about gum disposal behaviour and the messages that are likely to encourage people to behave well, rather than badly. That has to be pitched carefully, because the wrong advertising campaign or programme to tackle the problem could make things worse rather than better. The industry will back that up with point-of-sale material, with the support of retailers, and will do more work on good gum disposal messages in schools—something that it has been doing for a long time. The action group will also consider developing an innovation fund to help councils develop new solutions. That will be an effective blend of carrot and stick.
	The Conservatives always rail against too much regulation on business, so I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) proposes just that when so much work is being done. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said in Committee, if that work does not reduce gum littering, we may need to return to the matter and consider legislation. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York will consider her position and withdraw the new clause, because the next time she or any of her hon. Friends want to deregulate, she may blush a bit when she recollects that rather than resisting the urge to regulate, she jumped on a popular bandwagon when it came along, before giving partnership and voluntary co-operation a chance to work and to produce a genuinely sustainable solution. I urge hon. Members to oppose the new clauses.

John Gummer: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I do not think that she would accuse me of being an over-regulator, but I am surprised that she defends the industry, which has come into the debate only because of the considerable pressure placed on it. We must ask whether we should have done that a long time ago, given that most of us support the "polluter pays" concept. In this case, the industry puts on to the public market a product that is not biodegradable, that causes considerable unpleasantness, litters our streets and causes a great deal of damage to clothing and the like because of the way in which it is disposed of.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that it is pretty disgusting that Britain is less clean than our continental neighbours. Perhaps that is another example of something that we can learn from our neighbours, instead of always believing that we can teach them everything.
	I wonder whether the hon. Lady was entirely fair about the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). My hon. Friend is seeking to put a much greater responsibility on those who create the problem in the first place. If the industry is making money out of gum and people are causing trouble not just in small numbers but all over the country, which is resulting in what most would consider unpleasant, that industry should be producing some hard evidence of research and answers so that people can eat gum that is biodegradable, or at least easily cleaned up. I see no such evidence at this stage, yet that is what we would expect in almost every other circumstance.
	I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's points—that was a perfectly proper case for her to put, especially on behalf of her constituents—but we need to go a good step further, simply because, on the evidence, nothing will be done until there is so much pressure that the industry feels that it must do something. Corporate social responsibility might well have led the industry to do more in the past.
	My hon. Friend also commented on the areas covered—if that is the right phrase—by the Bill. One must recognise that the environment in general, and the built environment in particular, have a huge effect on people's behaviour and their quality of life. I am therefore particularly concerned if we do not point to some of the most obvious examples of litter causing offence. Any of us who are part of the travelling public understand that well.
	I find it difficult to defend the argument that we know that litter is filthy and disgraceful but that it is too expensive to collect it. There are two halves to that argument. One is that we need to do a great deal more to encourage people not to drop litter. Litter is one of the dirtiest aspects of our society, and I am afraid that we are worse than most of our neighbours in that respect. A visit to any other capital city in Europe will reveal that we have degenerated from the point at which once upon a time we were rather proud. We thought that we were rather good, but we are now at the other end of the scale.

Peter Atkinson: If my right hon. Friend wants to talk about litter, may I suggest that he take a drive down the A1, as I did yesterday? He will see the filthy state of that road. The amount of litter in   some sections is way beyond the Government's recommendation to local authorities. That road has not been cleaned for months, and it is a disgrace that a main artery of this country is in such a state.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend points to my concern about what people who visit this country must think about us when they see us behaving in such a way. Some of the worst roads are those leading from the airports into London. One cannot make a party political point about who does the cleaning up; it seems that in general we are dirty in the first place, and that we do not clean up satisfactorily.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton that there are two sides to the issue, and that one is to try to encourage people not to drop litter in the first place. Part of that is to ensure that we reduce the amount of packaging. I declare an interest as chairman of Valpak Ltd., which is a not-for-profit organisation that aims to deal with our packaging obligations. Therefore, I have a little knowledge about the matter. We have not yet done enough to reduce packaging. If we had less packaging, and more biodegradable packaging, we would be protecting our streets and the sides of our railways.
	The culprits are the people who drop litter, and we should improve how we teach people about litter. Perhaps more of us should follow the example of those redoubtable ladies who, when they see somebody drop litter, tend to pick it up and say, "You seem to have dropped this." One must be quite brave to do that, and "redoubtable" is perhaps an understatement of such people's nature. We must introduce much tougher penalties—a matter on which the Government have done a good deal. We must also ensure that people take responsibility for clearing up afterwards, which is the only way to drive them to try to improve the position.
	The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Vale of York are worthy of consideration by the Government. Although the Bill is small it is valuable, but it could be improved, and those are two areas in which it could properly be improved. I shall be particularly concerned if the Government are not prepared to lay greater responsibilities on the creators of the products that specifically and particularly cause offence, even if that is done by saying that unless a significant improvement is made over a period of time, certain things will happen.
	We have not gone far enough—on chewing gum, in particular. I hope that in another place the Government will go further, and come closer to meeting a reasonable objection from many people in our society.

Sue Doughty: This is a tough problem. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that stains left by chewing gum are present wherever we go. In some buildings, beautifully designed paveways have been ruined by chewing gum stains, which are a menace.
	Conservative new clause 10 is similar to some of the amendments that we discussed in Committee, so we know that more must be done and that more consultation is required. The consultation must be tough because the problem is no longer acceptable. Some would like us to go for the industry now, while others say that we should engage in consultation and implement regulations if we really want to solve the problem.
	As I said in Committee, although we have dealt with people who allow their dogs to make a mess, that does not mean that we can deal with people who drop chewing gum—a dog is an obvious culprit, but people who quietly drop chewing gum are not easily identified. The problem caused by chewing gum is far greater than that caused by dogs, and we must deal with the many people who think it reasonable to drop chewing gum.
	Liberal Democrats in the London assembly have surveyed 33 local authorities, every one of which thinks chewing gum a nuisance. Some 81 per cent. of London local authorities believe that gum companies should concentrate on developing biodegradable gum, which is essential; 53 per cent. of them do not think that imposing fines will stop people from discarding chewing gum, which is an area that we must explore; and 41 per cent. of them say that they have established dedicated teams to remove chewing gum from the streets. Tube companies spend £2 million a year and councils spend £2.3 million a year on cleaning up gum.

Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential to tackle behaviour rather than putting money into perpetually cleaning up gum? Westminster council has said that the gum returns within 10 days of a clean-up.

Sue Doughty: It is a complex issue. We need carrots and sticks to ensure that people do not constantly have to pay this money. London Liberal Democrats have suggested the introduction of a penny-a-pack levy on manufacturers, and I understand that Westminster council—we heard in Committee how much money it has spent—agrees with that.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Lady agree that a company that started entirely afresh in marketing a new product that was known to have such an impact would, as a matter of corporate social responsibility, be expected to change its formulation or to arrange for some kind of compensation for those who had to clean it up?

Sue Doughty: On the whole, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, life is full of unintended consequences, and only after products are marketed do we find that people have developed a particular behaviour in respect of them. In fairness, I do not believe that chewing gum manufacturers ever imagined that their product would be sold to people who throw it down in the street and walk away from it, which is a pretty disgusting thing to do. We do not have the prescience to say, "Here is a new product—its consumers will immediately misbehave in this particular way." We could introduce biodegradable gum and withdraw the nasty stuff from the market, but even biodegradable products do not simply vanish—if we cleaned up Oxford street it would be just as bad 10 days later.
	London Liberal Democrats recommended that chewing gum manufacturers should have to print large messages about correct disposal. That is a good idea and I hope that they will take it up. We need publicity campaigns to tell every person who buys this stuff not to throw it away, and we need more chewing gum bins outside major transport hubs. We worry about smoking waste, which is getting worse as people are driven outside to smoke and litter is created by doorways, but at least there are little receptacles on the walls indicating that people can put their rubbish there. That is not the case with chewing gum. We do not tell people, "This is where you stick the stuff", so they will stick it wherever they like.
	If we do not quickly come up with some good ideas, local government will continue to face disproportionate bills to pay for the clean-up costs. That is unfair.

Edward Davey: I agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency, Clarence street, at the heart of the town centre, is littered with chewing gum. That causes a serious problem, and the local authority has been spending a lot of money on it. It seems that some chewing gum companies are reluctant to spend money on telling people about safe disposal because they are worried that it might put them off buying their product. We will have to be much tougher on those companies and possibly force them to take that approach, because they will not do it willingly.

Sue Doughty: My hon. Friend makes a strong point that bears out my remarks. The consultation cannot be allowed to be a soft option. We should consider alternatives such as the penny-a-pack levy to be fed back to those who have to clean up this mess. Tough action is required. I hope that this will not be a lightweight consultation, because it cannot be allowed to be a soft option. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Peter Atkinson: I shall be brief because we want to hear what the Minister has to say. I support new clause 10 because the problems with chewing gum need to be tackled. The Liberal Democrat spokesman said that it was a question of consultation—I fear that more is needed and that we should send a tougher message to chewing gum manufacturers, conveying that they are partly responsible for the damage that their product does. That point applies to all litter. The manufacturers of soft drink cartons should also have some regard to the biodegradability of their products. As I said earlier, many seem to end up on British roads.
	People's behaviour is influenced by the state of the environment. Many years ago, when I was a councillor in London and we had taken over from a fading Labour council, we spent much more money and cleaned the streets. That had not been done properly in the time of Labour rule. One consequence of keeping the streets clean is that people throw far less litter. If one drives along a road such as the A1, where stretches are covered in litter, it is easy to think, "Well, I'll just chuck the can out of the window because it won't make any difference to the messy road." That applies to chewing gum. If the street is littered with chewing gum, it is a great temptation to throw it down and not dispose of it properly.
	In Chicago, the mayor has made a tremendous effort to keep the city clean. It is interesting to observe that the citizens of that city, which was once filthy, are meticulous about putting their rubbish in litter bins. If we set a good example, people will follow it. That is why I believe that a message to manufacturers about taking some responsibility, rather than consultation, is needed.

Alun Michael: I suppose that I should begin by welcoming the fact that one or two Conservative Members appear to have woken up to the importance of the Bill. However, on Second Reading, they opposed it and even failed to turn up to debate it, and they did not make major contributions in Committee. They therefore have a cheek to make such contributions to today's debate.
	I must resist new clause 2 on a ground that I hope that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will find immediately convincing. It is unnecessary because section 89(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 already requires a code of practice to be issued on the discharge of the litter clearance duties. That has been achieved through the code of practice on litter and refuse of 1999. Subsection (9) allows the code to be modified or withdrawn and reissued. We plan to consult on a new version of the code in the summer to take into account the changes for which the Bill provides. I assure hon. Members that we will cover standards for litter involving gum and smoking-related products in that code.
	New clause 10 is unnecessary and its principles have been debated in detail in Committee. The hon. Lady has a predilection for pointless regulation while resisting well considered efforts to tackle the real issues. The Government are already working with local government and the chewing gum industry through the chewing gum action group to tackle the problem of discarded chewing gum. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) referred to that a few moments ago. I set up that action group in autumn 2003.
	Members of the group represent the interests of both the chewing gum industry and local authorities, including Wrigley as the largest manufacturer in the UK, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and ENCAMS. We sponsor ENCAMS to run campaigns on behaviour change, which is at the heart of the matter. The group's remit is to find sustainable solutions, through a partnership approach, to the irresponsible disposal of gum.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton referred to the segmentation research, which arose out of the group's work. The group considered the research and asked why people behaved in such a way. The segmentation research demonstrated that different groups in society dispose of their gum in antisocial ways for different reasons. That is why the campaigning work, which is being designed and worked on in conjunction with the industry and ENCAMS, is tailored to the genuine reasons for people's behaviour.
	We have gone beyond simply saying that things are better elsewhere to asking how we can effect change by first understanding behaviour and then finding the levers that will lead to better behaviour, and litter disposal that does not cause the problems that hon. Members described. The action group is looking at national and local initiatives. The market research project will inform a national awareness-raising campaign that will take place later this year, which will be complemented by sustainable local campaigns around enforcement and innovative disposal solutions. There is no single solution to this; it is a question of carrot and stick and of behaviour change. It is a question of encouragement as well as exhortation.
	I am pleased by the way in which the industry has responded over the past 18 months. It is now contributing financially to the measures that the group developed. I spent some time at Wrigley in Plymouth a couple of weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, and I am convinced that the managing director, Gharry Eccles, and his team understand that, in regard to the more responsible disposal of gum, it is in the best interests of their company and the industry, as well as those of the wider public, to change the way in which people behave.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) sounded almost European in his wish to learn from other countries. I share his wish for better standards, but we must understand the problems of this country first. He clearly had not bothered to research his subject before coming into the Chamber to speak on it; otherwise he would have been aware of the work that the industry is now doing with us. It was unfortunate that he sought to attack the industry, and Wrigley in particular, in his speech.

John Gummer: I am proud to make the statement that I am a European. I am a European, I am proud of it, and I shall continue to be so. I should like to make a point to the Minister that I think is reasonable. I did not suggest that the industry had done nothing; I suggested that it had not done enough. I ask the Minister again to give us some time lines in regard to what the industry is going to do, when it will do it, and how soon we can expect to see any alteration. If he could do that, we would be happier with what his committee has been doing.

Alun Michael: I accept that as a sort of qualified apology from the right hon. Gentleman. I should not be too hard on him when he is clearly—

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was not an apology, and I would not like it to be accepted as such.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Alun Michael: I was being generous to the right hon. Gentleman, but if he does not want my generosity, he can do without it. I was about to say that I should not be too hard on him because he is now supporting a Bill that his party opposed on Second Reading—a point that needs to be made to Conservative Members time and again.
	Amendment No. 3 will be resisted because it is unnecessary. Clause 18 will make it an offence to drop litter anywhere in the open air, including on land beside railways, railway carriages and buses. It will cover structures such as bus shelters and railway platforms that are covered but accessible to the public. It will also cover land to which the public does not have access, such as boarded or fenced-off land adjacent to railways where dropped litter can easily accumulate.
	Subsection (3), by virtue of section 86(13) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, will exempt land that is both covered—albeit open to the air on at least one side—and not accessible to the public. Littering in such areas is really a matter for the occupier to deal with, as it does not impact on the quality of the local environment. The amount of litter likely to end up in such areas when thrown from a railway, railway carriage or bus is minimal.
	I must point out to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, when she was talking about transport undertakers, she confused clause 18, which deals with the offence of dropping litter, with clause 20, which is about litter cleansing notices. Amendment No. 3 does not affect the latter. Railways are under a statutory duty to keep their relevant land clear of litter, and that is not affected by the Bill. Litter cleansing notices could be issued in respect of other railway land, but we will issue guidance to ensure that they take account of operational needs after full consultation with the relevant operators. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press their amendment and new clauses to a vote.

Ann Coffey: Do the provisions in the Bill on litter and waste mean that a local authority will be able to serve a penalty notice on a householder who has put their household refuse out on an unadopted passageway to which the public have open access? My right hon. Friend will be aware that refuse bags that have been badly tied can lie in such passageways for days before disintegrating, causing huge litter problems across the whole neighbourhood.

Alun Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The simple answer to her question is yes. Under clause 48, it will be possible to issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone who leaves waste out on any land other than their own house or garden—the curtilage of their own dwelling. Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires householders to follow the requirements of the local authority on the collection of household waste.
	Government amendment No. 26 is necessary because, under clause 23 as it currently stands, the distribution of free printed matter in a public transport vehicle when on designated land could be covered by the offence. It could, therefore, be an offence to hand out leaflets on a bus if the bus were in a designated area at the time. We did not intend that to be an offence. Distributing material on a bus or coach is unlikely to result in the degradation of the local environment, and our amendment deals with this by clarifying the position. Controls on distribution will continue to apply, however, when material is distributed from a vehicle to people outside it, because in such circumstances, the literature could well end up being dropped as litter.
	Government amendment No. 27 is needed because clause 23 does not currently make it clear whether the local authority is able to give consent that extends to anyone other than the person who applied for it. The provision was intended to be wide, enabling the local authority to give consent that would cover the applicant, as well as allowing his employees, distributors or any other persons to be included within the consent. Amendment No. 27 makes the position clear. For example, if a company wishes to distribute a free newspaper in a designated area, the consent given to the company will also cover all those who actually hand out the paper. I therefore ask the House to accept amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Anne McIntosh: Amendment No. 3 addresses the concern put to us by the transport infrastructure companies that their land is not currently defined as public land for the purpose of making it an offence to drop litter on such land. The amendment would define their land as public land for the purposes of the Bill. The companies are already working hard to clear up the litter, and the Bill will place additional responsibilities on them in that regard. They feel that they would be greatly assisted if it were made an offence to drop litter on their land.
	I do not wish to press amendment No. 3 or new clause 10 to a vote, but I will persist with new clause 2. The Minister and his Department raised uncertainty by a proposal in their own consultation document, "Living Places—Powers, Rights and Responsibilities", that discarded chewing gum be defined as litter so that existing litter duties and powers would apply to dropped gum. The Minister referred to ENCAMS. A document on ENCAMS' website identified as the "MPs' pack" provides a guide to local environmental quality issues. It states:
	"The Defra consultation document, Living Places, Powers, Rights and Responsibilities recommends that discarded chewing gum be defined as litter to which existing litter duties and powers apply. If these recommendations are accepted the law would be clarified to create a duty to keep land clear of chewing gum. However, the costs to local authorities and other impacts would have to be assessed before any such change can be formally recommended. It would also allow members of the public to be fined for dropping gum, as they currently are for dropping litter."
	We believe that, once discarded gum has adhered to the ground, it cannot sensibly be considered in the same way as other litter. We therefore believe that there is scope for new clause 2 to be adopted, and we commend it to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 268.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 23
	 — 
	Consideration on free distribution of printed matter

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 20, line 36, at end insert—
	'(7)   For the purposes of this Schedule a person does not distribute printed matter if the distribution takes place inside a public service vehicle (within the meaning of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981).'.
	No. 27, in page 22, line 3, after 'person', insert
	'or any other person (identified specifically or by description)'.—[Alun Michael.]

Clause 31
	 — 
	Extension of graffiti removal notices to fly-posting

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 28, line 17, leave out 'fly-posting (or both)' and insert
	'any poster or flyer the display of which contravenes regulations under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990'.
	No. 23, in page 28, leave out lines 18 to 21.—[Alun Michael.]

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Waste Minimisation

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall consult waste collection and waste disposal authorities on the introduction of statutory targets for the minimisation of municipal waste.
	(2)   The Secretary of State shall consult representatives of industry on the potential for minimisation of waste of—
	(a)   statutory waste minimisation targets;
	(b)   statutory requirements for substitution of materials that are hazardous, difficult to recover, or difficult to recycle; and
	(c)   market incentives to promote the redesigning of products to extend their useful life and limit unrecoverable waste.'. —[Sue Doughty.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Sue Doughty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16—Waste disposal contracts' compatibility with statutory performance standards and local waste development frameworks—
	'The Secretary of State may make orders requiring local authorities that have contracts transferring waste disposal functions to specially formed companies to review those contracts to ensure compatibility with statutory performance standards and local waste development frameworks.'.
	New clause 17—Retail packaging recovery—
	'(1)   A relevant retailer shall provide a safe collection point within the curtilage of each of his retail outlets for the return of packaging sold or otherwise supplied from that outlet in the course of business.
	(2)   A collection point under subsection (1) shall be clearly signed and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
	(3)   A relevant retailer shall ensure that packaging collected under the provisions of section (1) above—
	(a)   where reasonably practicable, is reused, returned to the supplier or recycled; or
	(b)   in any other circumstances, is safely disposed of using a licensed waste disposal contractor.
	(4)   The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above.
	(5)   In this section—
	"packaging" means any container, material, substance or component supplied with a product but which is not a part of that product;"relevant retailer" means a person who carries on a business in a premises which—
	(a)   is approved for that purpose under Planning Use Class A1, A2 or A3, and
	(b)   has a net retail sales area greater than 250 square metres.'.
	New clause 18—Sustainability requirement for waste disposal functions—
	'(1)   The Secretary of State may make regulations to require that, where a waste disposal authority enters into a contract with a third party for all, or any part of, its waste disposal duties, minimum environmental sustainability requirements shall be met.
	(2)   Regulations under subsection (1) may have particular regard to—
	(a)   the effect of the duration of a contract on waste minimisation;
	(b)   the effect of the duration of a contract on diversion of waste from disposal to reuse or recycling;
	(c)   the application of the proximity principle;
	(d)   the energy efficiency of facilities;
	(e)   the involvement of sustainability advisers at evaluation stage for bids for waste disposal contracts;
	(f)   the use of mandatory outcome-based requirements for sustainability objectives.'.
	Amendment No. 37, in page 31, line 29, clause 37, leave out
	'is being or is about to be'
	and insert 'or is being'.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 46, line 31, clause 50, at end insert
	', in subsection (7)(c) after "authority", leave out "may" and insert "shall".'.

Sue Doughty: The purpose of tabling these new clauses and amendments is to consider the problem of waste disposal. New clause 15 considers waste minimisation.
	It would be wrong not to give the Government credit for the work of the waste and resources action programme, which is working hard on waste minimisation. We know that the waste strategy 2000 identifies both eco-design and redesign as ways to reduce waste, but we need to go further. WRAP is well supported by the Government, but it can only go so far. Waste minimisation needs to be taken further. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is ending its support for Waste Watch, which was doing valuable work in education. Having considered the previous group of new clauses and amendments on littering and so on, it is clear that education was one of the Government's tools, and not supporting Waste Watch will reduce the effectiveness of that.
	We have a real problem, however, with the continuing rise in the total amount of municipal waste, which in 2002–03 was an estimated 29.3 million tonnes—an increase of 1.8 per cent. on the 2001–02 figure of 28.8 million tonnes. Although we are making progress in decoupling the rise in waste from economic growth, which is healthy, we need to go further and consider waste minimisation targets. WRAP is getting work done on redesign, but it can only provide a certain level of stimulation for redesign in relation to the waste minimisation needed if we are to achieve sustainability.

Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the Government indicators, which highlight how councils perform on recycling, do not reflect waste minimisation? Councils such as mine in Lewes, which have succeeded in reducing waste per head of population, therefore receive no credit for that, because the recycling figure bears no relation to minimisation.

Sue Doughty: That is an important point, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. While we work with councils, consider recycling and alternative ways of disposing of waste and meet targets to reduce landfill, if we do not reduce the amount of waste that we produce, no matter how much we divert waste from one place to another, we will ultimately fail to meet those targets. We therefore have some major concerns.
	Liberal Democrats have been debating zero waste strategies for some years, and it is now party policy. It is also the policy in other places, such as New Zealand, whose waste strategy includes major requirements to reduce the amount of waste produced in the first place. In relation to zero waste, Mark Barthel of WRAP talks about the interesting concept of Z2, which considers sustainability in terms of zero waste and zero emissions and examines the problem in its totality. One of the worrying aspects of waste is that it not only fills up landfill but particular types of waste produce harmful emissions. New Zealand, Canada and Australia have taken that on board, yet when we asked recently what the Government were doing to examine further the question of zero waste, the answer was "nothing". It does not seem to be on the Government's agenda, and it is of great concern to us that such techniques should be evaluated by the Government. There is a large body of information from across the world on how waste can be reduced and minimised. Our Government would be foolish to ignore that, as some quick wins are possible.
	People question whether zero waste can be achieved, but quality control always aims for zero faults. We should aim to continue to reduce the amount of material sent to waste, instead of digging up resources from the ground or plucking them from the trees and then throwing them away three or six months later. We are missing good opportunities to examine how to reuse materials and minimise waste.
	It was sad, and it is a reflection of why we are not doing enough on waste minimisation, that a conference on zero waste that I attended last week was woefully under-attended. Some brilliant techniques were put forward, including work being done by WRAP, but without a Government strategy for waste minimisation, as opposed to initiatives through WRAP, we will not make progress. The new clause would put that right by requiring the Government to consult on ways in which they could strengthen the waste strategy by introducing stronger measures to support the top two options in a zero-waste hierarchy, reduction and redesign. We need much more focus on those options, which is why my party will press for a Division.
	We hope that following their review of the waste strategy 2000, the Government will take the excellent opportunity that we are presenting to amend the hierarchy so that it explicitly includes redesign. Some work is being done through the waste and resources action programme, but much more is needed. We want the current way of measuring recycling levels to be reformed so that councils, such as Lewes, that reduce waste per capita by means of, for instance, home composting do not score less than councils that perform less well. That is why we are particularly concerned about waste minimisation.
	New clause 16 is intended to ensure that consultation involves local waste development frameworks, and contracts relate to what is happening in the big world outside. The contracting out of waste disposal functions to the private sector or to arm's-length companies could result in inflexibility. The previous arrangements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can prevent waste disposal authorities from securing continuous improvements in the way in which they dispose of waste to meet recycling targets. We have major worries about contracts that are written and then cost an arm and a leg to change. Society and the Government may say that we need to change the rules to ensure a more sustainable approach to disposal, but councils are tied to contracts that do not reflect that. We want to help authorities to manage contracts while also making improvements.
	In 1999, Surrey county council signed a 25-year contract that included incineration. Even since then, things have changed. We opposed incineration, and there was a change of MP in part of the Surrey area. Throughout Surrey people are beginning to recognise the need for a fresh look at waste.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Lady claims that her party is opposed to incineration, yet it adopts an enthusiastic approach to combined heat and power. How does she square the two views?

Sue Doughty: I am very disappointed by that intervention. Combined heat and power does not need to be fed by incineration. A range of fuels can be used, and it is not necessary to burn waste to produce energy. Under a Conservative council, Guildford has not taken opportunities to make the maximum energy saving—but the debate is about waste, not energy. We must ensure that contracts requiring incineration do not promote the assumption that waste will continue to feed the incinerator.

Anne McIntosh: As a Select Committee member, the hon. Lady has a detailed knowledge of these matters. Does the very term "combined heat and power" not suggest the use of some form of incineration?

Sue Doughty: We are talking about the incineration of waste, not about combined heat and power. We are not discussing the use of wood chippings, sugar beet or anything else to produce heat. Combined heat and power presents a good many opportunities, but I do not understand what part they play in a debate on a Bill dealing with waste.
	What concerns me is that after only two years the Surrey county council contract failed to meet its statutory performance targets for recycling. I am not trying to "beat up on" Surrey. I know that there has been a change of personnel and that the council is trying to take a fresh look at the possibilities for a sustainable environmental approach. It would be wrong not to give it credit for its use of "sustainability" in job titles. Some of the staff are deeply committed to sustainability, and I support what they are trying to do with the contract that they have inherited. The fact is, however, that although we have a local waste development framework on which consultation is taking place, what was done in 1999 set the course of waste disposal.
	That is the reason for the new clause. If contracts could be reviewed and updated to facilitate compliance with statutory performance standards, Surrey council and the contractor would be obliged to confront the fact that at present the contract requires only 25 per cent. recycling. Moreover, that includes incinerator ash, which it is no longer legal to include in the calculation. The statutory target is 36 per cent., and excludes incinerator ash. The contract needs to be changed. Would that not best be done in conjunction with the local waste development framework?
	The Government will expect such contracts to be reviewed in terms of best value. The problem is that we are consulting on frameworks at a time when a wet earth disposal strategy has been established in a contract. We want contracts to be tied to frameworks. Another problem is that although boroughs in Surrey have been trying hard to improve their recycling records, credit is going to the disposal authority, which has done far less than those boroughs. As the Minister knows, I have long had worries about the whole business of collection and disposal authorities. I have never quite understood why it seems to work against what is best. Some unitary authorities have a much more coherent approach.

Anne Campbell: What puzzles me is that waste minimisation, along with recycling, often depends on the volume of waste. Does the hon. Lady agree that that gives authorities little incentive to deal with, for example, the recycling of batteries? I have seen it in France, but my local authority provides no facilities for it.

Sue Doughty: I understand that waste is measured by weight rather than volume. We have debated the issue for a long time, and I am sure the hon. Lady will know of the problems with disposal of plastics, which are bulky but light. Fewer than 0.1 per cent. of batteries are sent for appropriate disposal—recycling—and we still have a problem with batteries in domestic waste. Most authorities cannot make their sums add up, because this country does not have adequate facilities. I speak from memory and stand to be corrected, but I understand that although facilities are being set up, that is happening in Scotland—a long way from the point of generation in the south of England or the east, where the hon. Lady's constituency is. Adequate battery disposal is a matter of great concern to us all, and under a zero waste contract—or, indeed, under any waste contract—we want some of the harder-to-deal-with products to be dealt with appropriately.

John Gummer: I return the hon. Lady to her comments about waste being measured by weight. Is not the fact that local authority targets are fixed by weight one of the fundamental problems? Instead, one needs a much more selective mechanism so that, for example, packaging and other parts of the waste stream could prove valuable to local authorities in terms of contributing to national targets. We need a much more sensitive arrangement than the current one.

Sue Doughty: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. I get the feeling that even with plastics, with which we know we are having problems, there is much more that we can do. In my local authority—I am not making a party political point; this is doubtless true of many other authorities—two major supermarkets, Tesco and Sainsbury's, have plastic "bring points". One might assume that one end of Guildford shops at Sainsbury's and the other at Tesco, but these "bring points" are used by people who work in the constituency but do not necessarily live there. For example, someone who lives in Reigate but teaches at a school in Guildford deposits plastic bottles at one of those sites. Bottles are brought to the collection area and left there in plastic bags; indeed, bag upon bag is left there.
	We need to do much more to educate the public, hence my concern about Waste Watch. We need to ensure that, as in France and Spain, people drop their old batteries into a collection unit when they buy their replacements, assuming that they cannot use rechargeable ones. We also need to ensure that people know that the best thing that they can do with their plastic bottles is to stamp on them and, if possible, remove the paper wrapper. That would help everybody, including the markets, but unfortunately we are failing on the education front.
	Such issues are also important in terms of how contracts work. We must create a framework whereby we modify those contracts and tell collection and disposal authorities that they must improve, increase recycling and reduce waste. In that way, we will avoid waste incineration, for example, which people do not want. We should also help people to dispose of their waste in the most appropriate way. On mechanical biological treatment, would it not be better to provide the option of anaerobic digestion, which is not an incineration process, even though it produces a gas by-product that can be burned? There are many other ways in which we can dispose of waste, and tying oneself into a long contract is not a good idea.
	We still have a problem with retail packaging recovery and producer products. We buy such products at supermarkets, take them home—and then what? Again, the burden falls on local authorities. Some of the better organisations have had a serious look at packaging and are doing some good things; for example, B&Q is looking at end-to-end use of packaging. Unfortunately, although they are leading from the front, many other organisations are lagging behind and not playing their part. We want to introduce a measure on producer responsibility in order to increase recycling rates, and to provide an incentive for retailers to limit the amount of packaging used. In Germany, deposits form part of such schemes. There has been some negotiation as to how such deposits work, along with some discussion of how well the German scheme is working. There is room for improvement in terms of recovering bottles and other plastics, but such improvement is beginning to happen.
	New clause 18, which would create a sustainability requirement for waste disposal functions, is also concerned with the problem of contracts. We need to establish what the sustainability requirement is. As we know, it is very easy to introduce private finance initiative-based contracts that include no real definition of sustainability. Although the Government look for best value in such contracts, they do not put the same effort into dealing with sustainability deficiencies. Some authorities will of course still choose to contract out waste disposal functions. For example, a small authority might not find it economical to carry out such functions or to build a partnership with a neighbour. Such contracts must have sustainability at their core.
	A report produced by the Green Alliance last year, entitled "PFI: Meeting the sustainability challenge", pointed out that there are sustainability guidelines for agreeing PFI contracts, but that not a lot of attention is being paid to them. They are honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and they are optional. If there were firmer sustainability requirements, local authorities would have to take on board advice about sustainability, and bidders would have to pay greater attention to, and make firmer commitments to, meeting such requirements. We need to strengthen those requirements and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue. He has the opportunity to tell us how sustainability will be brought into waste contracts and other contracts.
	Amendment No. 37 follows on from a debate that we had in Committee on the failure to provide valid authority for transporting waste, and on the obstruction of officers exercising stop-and-search powers relating to that offence. We identified a discrepancy between subsections (2)(b) and (8)(b) of clause 37. The former states that a vehicle can be stopped by an officer if it
	"appears to him to be a vehicle that has been, is being or is about to be used for transporting . . . waste".
	However, subsection (8)(b), which deals with the offence of failing to co-operate with an officer exercising such stop-and-search powers, refers only to waste that
	"was or was being transported".
	The Minister said in Committee:
	"An offence is committed only if controlled waste is or has been transported, which is the reason for the language in the Bill"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 January; c.167.]
	That, however, does not clear up the inconsistency between the two subsections. We are taking account of the Minister's response and suggesting that the phrase "about to be" be removed from subsection (2)(b). I hope that the Minister has had a chance to look at the amendment and that we will achieve a satisfactory meeting of minds. We already have enough problems securing adequate evidence and conviction, particularly in relation to transporting waste, and I would hate a loophole to be used to provide a defence in cases where we should be securing a conviction.

Anne Campbell: I do not want to detain the House for very long, but I want to add a few remarks to those made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who made some very valid points about waste minimisation. The whole purpose of our recycling policy should be to reduce the amount of waste material going into landfill sites, but the hon. Lady will doubtless join me in congratulating the Government on increasing recycling in an astonishing way—one that I did not think possible in 1997.
	In my own local authority, when Labour was in control in 1998, we were recycling 14 per cent. of domestic rubbish. That gave the Liberal Democrats a target of 28 per cent. to achieve by 2004, which they failed to realise. They have also failed the further target of 36 per cent. this year. I am sorry about that, because many things could quite easily be done to enable the council to meet its recycling targets.
	I understand that the hon. Member for Guildford is talking about waste minimisation rather than recycling, but I hope that she agrees with me that the higher the rate of recycling, the less waste needs to go to landfill sites. I know that it is not always the case, but manufacturers sometimes seem intent on vying with each to produce more and more packaging, so we all end up with more packaging in our shopping bags at the end of the day. If we can increase the amount of waste for recycling, less material will need to go to landfill.

Sue Doughty: The hon. Lady mentioned two figures relating to recycling in Cambridge. I cannot comment on the second, because I have not looked into it, but I understand in respect of the first figure that it had nothing to do with the change of council administration and a sloppy attitude, but reflected a change in the way waste was counted. It would not have mattered which council took over from the previous council: the figures would have risen in any case.

Anne Campbell: That was the excuse offered by the Liberal Democrats on Cambridge city council, but the Government have not accepted it. It is not sensible to start quibbling about the figures; we should look at further ways to enhance recycling and improve waste minimisation.
	In response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), when Cambridge city council first introduced green bins, I was visited by one of the council's officers, who wanted to know why I was putting so little into my green bin. The answer was that most of the stuff that should have gone into my green bin had actually been deposited on my own compost heap. That is an eminently sensible way of dealing with the problem, rather than leaving it for someone else, though many people without large gardens have to resort to that.

Norman Baker: The hon. Lady seems to agree with me and I noticed the Minister nodding helpfully. What seems to have happened is that the Government, with the best of intentions, have driven councils down the recycling route—we are all in favour of recycling—but not down the minimisation road. Councils now often actively recycle to get their figures up, instead of minimising in order to get the waste down.

Anne Campbell: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There is some good sense in what he says and I began by observing that I agreed with much of what had already been said in the debate. Given the importance of waste minimisation and given that the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned plastic bags a few moments ago, I am surprised that she did not mention—perhaps it is inappropriate in the context of the particular provisions that we are debating now—the idea of having a plastic bag tax, as in Ireland, where it has proved to be a sensible measure. I must say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I find it infuriating when I go into a supermarket with my rucksack—of course, I cycle there—and I am immediately offered plastic bags to put all my shopping into. As well as being infuriating, it is completely unnecessary.

Sue Doughty: I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments and I believe that we are of one mind on the issue. She will be pleased to hear that what she suggests will, subject to a full environmental impact assessment, become Liberal Democrat policy.

Anne Campbell: I am pleased to hear it. At the national policy forum, which I attended in July, a resolution was passed to include in our relevant policy documents the need for a review of the plastic bag tax. I am pleased that Ministers felt able to accept that proposal.

Paddy Tipping: In taking that argument forward, is my hon. Friend aware that the Department is now investigating the environmental cycle of plastic bags and that there may be a downside as well as an upside? Does she agree that placing a tax on plastic bags would raise the profile of waste management? Should we not now get on with it?

Anne Campbell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point. Yes, let us get on and do that.
	I want to deal with the recycling of plastics generally, which has been a hot issue in my own constituency. I carried out a survey, based on a form that was sent to every household. I received more than 600 responses—not bad considering that people had to pay to post them back to me. What people wanted more than anything else was kerbside collection of plastics. I believe that it is a very good idea; I know that my waste bin is full of plastic, partly because I am reduced to buying convenience foods that all come neatly wrapped in rather rigid plastic containers.
	I discovered, however, that it is difficult to carry out kerbside recycling of plastics, largely because of the bulk, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. When plastics are collected, it is probably necessary to have a crusher to reduce the volume. Cambridge city council has proposed kerbside recycling of plastics and collecting them separately from other products such as tins, papers, glass bottles and so forth. I understand that most of the energy saved by recycling the plastic will be used in oil when the material is taken to China, melted down and re-used. I cannot believe that that is a sensible use of council tax payers' money. If the hon. Lady had some fresh ideas and could offer them to her Liberal Democrat colleagues on the council, I would be most grateful. I understand that that policy will increase council tax in Cambridge by about 10 per cent.—a horrendous amount for people to pay. I am advised that it will cost about 20p per plastic bottle recycled. That cannot be a sensible way forward, though it may appear to be so on the surface.

Sue Doughty: I think that we are both of one mind on the need to recycle plastics. The fact remains that, if more were done to stimulate the market for plastic recycling in this country, it would not be necessary for materials to go over to China. I looked into the problem and I am concerned about boats coming over full and going back to China, so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not go on making mini-speeches in her interventions. There is only a relatively small amount of time left for debate.

Anne Campbell: I do not want to add anything further to what I have said and I know that we are all interested in hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

Anne McIntosh: I rise to support amendment No. 28—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Lady means to speak to amendment No. 29.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean amendment No. 29, which relates to clause 50. I draw the Minister's attention to the instructions in the briefing sent by the Environment Agency to all right hon. and hon. Members. It deals with how to apply section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The amendment would remove "may" and insert "shall", thereby requiring the relevant authority—the Environment Agency—to clear fly-tipped material or rubbish from all land. Once the landowner has proved that the material was fly-tipped—namely, dumped without his knowledge, consent or permission—we believe that that should be enough to qualify for removal: not at the landowner's expense, I hasten to add, but at the expense of the local authority.

Sue Doughty: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: No, we have heard quite enough from the hon. Lady about this group of amendments.
	The briefing says that we must stamp out all forms of fly-tipping. It is a form of environmental crime which is increasing. It has an element of cowboy activities with a strong criminal undertone, and we must remove the results from private land as well as public land. Why should landowners have to put up with what could be hazardous, noxious and very unpleasant waste on their land?
	The purpose of the amendment is to require the relevant authority to clear fly-tipped material from all land. That would occur only when the occupier had established his defence that the material was fly-tipped. Without the amendment, authorities will continue not to clear waste from land in their areas, so the true scale of fly-tipping will never be ascertained and the necessary resources to deal with the problem will never be allocated.
	I shall not speak at length on the note from the Environment Agency, but I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to it before he responds. It states clearly on page 1 that the agency cannot and would not want to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against the deposit if there was no evidence that they were responsible. It also states that the agency does not have the power to require any other person, including the culprit, to remove waste unless they are the occupier or landowner. Again, the agency cites the background data to the effect that in 2003 it served 131 notices under section 59.
	In conclusion, I humbly submit to the Minister that the Environment Agency is not empowered to require an occupier or landowner to remove waste or remediate against its deposit if there is no evidence that they are responsible. Clearly, it believes that illegally dumped waste on privately owned land is a more difficult issue than that on public land. Neither the local authority nor the Environment Agency is under any legal obligation to remove the waste. However, the agency states that in some circumstances it will remove illegally deposited waste to mitigate an imminent risk of pollution or harm, and then seek to recover its costs. That is unacceptable. Fly-tipped waste should be removed from all land regardless of whether ownership of that land is private or public.

Alun Michael: It is interesting how much ground has been covered during this short debate and I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part.
	The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) acknowledged some of the actions that we are taking to improve our performance on waste disposal. I accept that the matter is fraught with difficult decisions and challenges. Indeed, so much could be said on the issues that have been raised that I will write to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and will place a copy of my letter in the Library.
	The impact on existing contracts, which are often—but not always—long term, is a serious issue. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) complained that recycling and composting targets do not reflect waste minimisation. That is true at the moment. We have focused on recycling and composting in current targets, but another best value performance indicator—the number of kilos of household waste per head—takes account of waste minimisation. We are reviewing the local authority recycling targets this year, along with a review of waste strategy 2000, and we will consider further levers to encourage waste minimisation as part of that. There are some points on which we can have a meeting of minds in attempting to deal with the issues.
	I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for her helpful contribution on the whole range of issues before us.
	New clause 15 is resisted because Government policy seeks to drive the management of waste up the waste hierarchy. Waste minimisation sits at the top of that hierarchy so, when planning for waste management, the potential for minimisation must be evaluated before consideration of any alternatives.

Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but will you confirm that in five minutes you will be required to put the Question on this stage of the Bill's consideration without the House having had the opportunity to discuss amendment No. 11 and dogs? We shall be unable to discuss that not because the Chair has forgotten about it, but because the restrictive programming motion leaves us no time to consider it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be premature in making his point of order. The Chair does not know what will happen in the next few minutes.

Alun Michael: Well, the Standing Committee had a good debate on dogs. When we discussed the programme motion, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) took up some time referring to various organisations, which I have met and engaged with in recent weeks. I assure him that his and their concerns have been addressed. We can make progress, even if he is frustrated and prevented from making his contribution on the only issue in the Bill that seems to bother him.
	New clause 15 is resisted because a number of means exist by which the same objectives can be pursued, including the new landfill tax escalator, the packaging obligations, and the waste and resources action programme. I shall expand on some of those and other issues in a letter to hon. Members.
	New clause 16 is also resisted. We accept that waste disposal contracts must deliver the outcomes in a waste disposal authority's long-term strategy for sustainable waste management and deliver the infrastructure needed to reach those outcomes, as set out in the authority's local development framework. However, local authorities are autonomous bodies and responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure that existing contracts are reviewed and that future contracts do not cause conflict.
	The duty of best value, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, requires local authorities to secure continuous improvement in service delivery through challenge, comparison, consultation and competition. When an existing contract does not meet statutory obligations, the authority must find a way of taking additional action within or separately from the contract to address the problem, or face the consequences. That could involve formal intervention by the Government as a last resort if the authority is failing to deliver best value or a financial penalty under the landfill allowance trading schemes. A number of mechanisms exist—I would be happy to expand on them—that allow us to go in the direction that has led to the drafting of the new clause.
	New clause 17 is also resisted. There are two separate issues: increased packaging recovery and persuading more consumers to recycle more. Both are vital, but it is not clear that compulsory provision of take-back facilities for packaging in-store is the best way of achieving both, although that may play a role. We do not believe that such a duty would add value to the mechanisms already in place. We are also concerned that the proposal would disregard the fact that local authorities have a statutory duty to collect and dispose of household waste, including household packaging waste. It is not clear how the amendment would fit with that duty. There would be practical problems with identification of material supplied from a particular outlet, lack of support from consumers, and so on. However, I do not deny that the proposal could make a contribution and that it is worth exploring further.
	New clause 18 is resisted because waste disposal contracts must be environmentally sustainable, but local authorities are autonomous bodies, responsible for making their own decisions on procurement within the regulatory framework. Sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure environmental sustainability of contracts, including a duty of best value, statutory performance standards and so on.
	Amendment No. 37 is resisted because it would limit the flexibility of the enforcing authorities to take the most appropriate enforcement action at the most appropriate time. It would not allow them to search vehicles that were reasonably believed to be about to be used to commit an offence. Instead, they would have to wait until the offence was committed and only then proceed to carry out the search. It is important to retain the power to search vehicles that are, it is reasonably believed, about to be used to commit an offence.
	Amendment No. 29 is resisted because the national and local taxpayer—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 246.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 50
	 — 
	Power to require owner of land to remove waste

Amendment proposed: No. 29, page 46, line 31, at end insert
	', in subsection (7)(c) after "authority", leave out "may" and insert "shall".'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 246.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Audible motor vehicle alarms: Amendment of the road vehicles (construction and use) regulations 1986

'(1)   The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) are amended as follows.
	(2)   In regulation 3(2) (interpretation), in the Table, at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, insert—
	
		
			  
			 Expression Meaning 
			 "audible motorvehicle alarm a system fitted within a motor vehicle which involves the sounding of a horn, bell, gong or siren with the purpose of raising an alarm as to the theft or attempted theft of the vehicle or its contents, or a forced entry or attempted forced entry into the vehicle. 
			 bell includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a bell. 
			 gong includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a gong. 
			 horn an instrument, not being a bell, gong or siren, capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle to which it is fitted. 
			 siren includes references to any instrument or apparatus capable of emitting a sound similar to that emitted by a siren." 
		
	
	(3)   In regulation 37 (audible warning instruments)—
	   (a)   for paragraphs (7) and (8) substitute—
	 "(7)   The provisions of paragraph (4) shall not apply so as to make it unlawful for a vehicle to be fitted with—
	(a)   an audible car alarm, or
	(b)   in the case of a bus, a bell, gong or siren the purposeof which is to summon help for the driver, conductor oran inspector.";
	   (b)   in paragraph (9), for the words "(4) to (8)", substitute the words "(4) to (7)"; and
	   (c)   in paragraph (10), omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(4)   In regulation 99(5) (exemptions from general restrictions on use of audible warning instruments), omit the word "or" after paragraph (a), and for paragraph (b) substitute—
	   "(b)   an audible car alarm, or
	   (c)   in the case of a bus, a horn (not being a two-tone horn), bell, gong or siren to summon help for the driver, the conductor or an inspector."
	(5)   After regulation 99, insert—
	"99A   Restrictions on audible motor vehicle alarms on certain motor vehicles first used on or after 1st January 2007
	(1)   Subject to paragraph (2), this regulation applies to a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st January 2007.
	(2)   The provisions of this regulation do not apply to—
	   (a)   motor vehicles of the kinds listed in regulation 37(5), or
	   (b)   buses.
	(3)   The audible motor vehicle alarm of a motor vehicle to which this regulation applies—
	   (a)   may not at any time emit a noise exceeding 55 decibels,
	   (b)   may not emit a noise for a continuous period of more than ninety seconds,
	   (c)   may not emit a noise for more than ninety seconds in response to a single event initiating the emitting of a noise, and
	   (d)   shall be maintained in good working order so as to comply with the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) to (c).
	(4)   In this regulation—
	'A-weighted sound pressure level' has the same meaning as that given in BS 7445;
	'BS 7445' means British Standard BS7445: Part 1 1991/International Standard ISO 1996-1: 1982 'Description and measurement of environmental noise. Part 1. Guide to quantities and procedures';
	'decibel' is a unit of both A-weighted sound pressure level and equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level as given in BS 7445.
	99B   General restrictions on audible motor vehicle alarms on certain motor vehicles first used before 1st January 2007
	(1)   Subject to paragraph (2), this regulation applies to a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st October 1982.
	(2)   The provisions of this regulation do not apply to—
	   (a)   motor vehicles to which regulation 99A applies,
	   (b)   motor vehicles of the kinds listed in regulation 37(5), or
	   (c)   buses.
	(3)   The audible motor vehicle alarm of a motor vehicle to which this regulation applies—
	   (a)   may not emit a noise for a continuous period of more than ninety seconds,
	   (b)   may not emit a noise for more than ninety seconds in response to a single event initiating the emitting of a noise, and
	   (c)   shall be maintained in good working order so as to comply with the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).".'.—[Norman Baker.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—Audible motor vehicle alarms: amendment of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981—
	'(1)   The Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1694) are amended as follows.
	(2)   In regulation 20 (fees for examinations)—
	   (a)   in paragraph (3A)(b), after the reference to "anti-lock braking system warning device", insert—
	"audible motor vehicle alarm"; and
	   (b)   in paragraph (7)(c), before sub-sub-paragraph (i), insert
	  "(ai)   audible motor vehicle alarm,".
	(3)   In Schedule 2 (the prescribed statutory requirements)—
	   (a)   in paragraph 1(a) (which relates to light motor bicycles and motor bicycles), in the Table, after the row relating to item 5A, insert—
	
		
			  
			 Item No. Regulations Affecting 
			 "5B 99A and 99B Audible Motor Vehicle Alarm" 
		
	
	   (b)   in paragraph 2(a) (which relates to light motor vehicles other than motor bicycles), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(c)   in paragraph 3(a) (which relates to motor cars and heavy motor cars), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(d)   in paragraph 3A(a) (which relates to certain minibuses), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(e)   in paragraph 4(a) (which relates to certain passenger-carrying and public service vehicles), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(f)   in paragraph 4A (which relates to certain passenger-carrying and public service vehicles with forward-facing seats), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(g)   in paragraph 5(a) (which relates to certain public service vehicles), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B";(h)   in paragraph 5A(a) (which relates to certain public service vehicles), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B"; and(i)   in paragraph 6 (which relates to certain goods vehicles), after the reference to item 4, insert "5B".'.
	New clause 13—Audible motor vehicle alarms: amendment of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988—
	'(1)   The Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988/1478) are amended as follows.
	(2)   In regulation 16 (fees for re-tests), in paragraph (6)(c)(i), for the words "and 16", substitute the words "16 and 16A".
	(3)   In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (the prescribed construction and use requirements), in the Table, after the row relating to item 16, insert—
	
		
			  
			 Item No. Regulation Subject Matter 
			 "16A 99A and 99B Audible motor vehicle alarm".'.

Norman Baker: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce these new clauses. Those who pay particular attention to the workings of Parliament may note that there is a striking similarity between them and the Bill that I introduced which is due for a Second Reading on 18 March. I also record the fact that that Bill, which is replicated in the new clauses, has the support of Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament, and I hope that it will generate a response similar to the all-party support that I had for my motion on climate change two weeks ago. The Minister is not nodding now, but perhaps he will later on.
	There is undoubtedly a problem with car alarms in environmental and noise nuisance terms. The Government have correctly identified the need to tackle noise nuisance through the Bill's proposals concerning audible intruder alarms. My colleagues and I broadly welcome what the Government have done on that issue. However, the Minister will also accept—he referred to it in an intervention on Second Reading—that there is a nuisance from car alarms. They can legally sound up to 120dB—the same level as a pneumatic drill or a rock concert. They tend to go off quite frequently, and they are assumed by those who hear them to be false alarms. When people hear an alarm go off, they do not say, "My goodness. A car has been broken into. I must telephone the police." Instead they curse the alarm, put pillows over their heads and try to go back to sleep. Car alarms are not even effective in what they try to do.
	The new clauses have two aims. The first is to eliminate the environmental nuisance associated with car alarms and the second is to improve the security of motor vehicles. If people assume that a car alarm going off is a false alarm, it is obviously no deterrent. When I first raised the issue, one journalist to whom I spoke said that his car was broken into in the street in broad daylight, the alarm went off and the intruder just looked at passers by and said, "Bloody car alarm"—if I am allowed to use that phrase in the Chamber—and carried on with the theft of the car. All the people in the street simply walked by without responding. It is clear that car alarms are ineffective.
	The Minister may be aware of the attempt made in New York to ban car alarms. If he has seen the evidence, he will know that 75 per cent. of 800 New Yorkers polled said that car alarms interfered with their sleep and 90 per cent. said that car alarms diminished their quality of life. More to the point in terms of the crime element, the New York police department, in a booklet that it produced, labelled audible car alarms as
	"an annoying and sometimes unbearable disturbance for residents in their homes".
	It said:
	"audible car alarms frequently go off for no apparent reason"
	and that such devices
	"invite both further disorder and serious crime."
	In other words, alarms not only fail to arrest crime, but generate it. The report pointed out that in Williamsburg during the year in question, two cars were purposely set ablaze because their alarms kept being triggered. There have been other stories of cars being vandalised because alarms have spontaneously erupted, so we can assume that car alarms create crime, rather than preventing it.
	A better way forward would be for manufacturers to stop using 1960s technology—that is essentially what car alarms are—and move towards more effective crime prevention measures that are also less environmentally intrusive. The Minister will be aware of alternative existing technologies, such as immobilisers, which prevent a car from being driven away. He will be aware of pager alarms, which replace the siren in conventional alarms by instead sending a signal to the mobile phone, pager or landline telephone of the car's owner. He will also be aware that tracking systems are up and running that allow a signal to be sent from a car that has been taken, to its owner. That technology has the benefit of not only returning the car to the owner, but identifying the criminal who takes the car. Other systems that are currently available include anti-carjacking systems, so plenty of technologies exist that are far more effective than conventional alarms at detecting crime and preventing car theft, and much less environmentally intrusive.
	The Minister might be aware that Val Weedon, the secretary of the UK Noise Association, wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 10 February. The letter read:
	"I am writing to ask whether the recent Private Member's Bill on audible car alarms, presented in parliament yesterday by Norman Baker MP, could be incorporated into the new Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, presently making its way through parliament? I understand a similar thing was done with the Anti Social Behaviour Act and a Private Member's Bill on fireworks."
	I am pleased to say that the letter went on to support my Bill. Incorporating my Bill in the Government's legislation would be an excellent idea, so the new clauses make that possible. I hope that the Minister agrees that alarms are ineffective and "alarmingly useless", to use the phrase of a pressure group campaigning against them. I also hope that he will take the view that manufacturers should be encouraged to replace traditional audible car alarms with devices that prevent crime more effectively and eliminate the noise nuisance that currently exists.
	It seems to me that insurance companies are the driving force behind the continuing use of car alarms. Although I do not wish to misquote the manufacturers, they tell me that insurance companies require such alarms to be fitted. Insurance companies should examine whether there are more effective ways of preventing car theft and change their policies accordingly.
	Train horn noise is not directly addressed by the new clauses, but it is germane to the matter that we are discussing because it leads to people suffering an intrusion similar to that caused by car alarms. Train horn noise is also about 120 dB and new trains require louder horns than the old slam-door rolling stock. I am disappointed that the Government have not addressed that problem. Individual hon. Members of all three parties have been required to put pressure on the relevant rail companies and we are making a little progress. The Bill addresses intruder alarms sited at a fixed point, but it singularly fails to deal with alarms on mobile technology—if I may call cars and trains that. The new clauses would limit the maximum sound emitted from a car alarm to 55 dB, which is the equivalent to background traffic noise, and would set a maximum sounding time for a car alarm of 90 seconds.
	The Minister responded to a point about the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made on Second Reading by citing the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which states:
	"noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street"
	can be dealt with. He also pointed out that local authorities can
	"enter or open a vehicle, if necessary by force, to silence a car alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place."—[Official Report, 10 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 121.]
	That is undoubtedly true, but the legislation is not working. Not all local authorities operate 24-hour services, and those that do will not respond within 90 seconds, which under my private Member's Bill would be the maximum time for which a car alarm could sound. In practice, local authorities come out only if an alarm has been sounding for two, three or four hours, by which time an entire neighbourhood could have lost its sleep.
	The new clauses plough the same furrow as the Government's attempt to limit noise nuisance. The Government have identified the problem of noise nuisance, and although they have addressed stationary alarms in the Bill, they have missed a trick by not dealing with car alarms. It is not sufficient to hope that manufacturers will adopt modern alarm systems, because they are relying on 40-year-old technology instead. I hope that the Government will give a sympathetic hearing to the new clauses, because they are an attempt to make life better not only for car owners, but for those who suffer from the noise nuisance caused by car alarms.

Alun Michael: I am aware of the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on this subject, and I acknowledge that a range of options are now available for people who want to try to prevent car crime—both the theft of vehicles and breaking into vehicles. Indeed, one could point out that that range of options has made a significant contribution to the reduction of car crime.
	In addition to achieving excellent public relations for his private Member's Bill, the hon. Gentleman recalled that I commented on car alarms on Second Reading. In fairness, he went on to remind the House that I also pointed out that legislation exists to address the problem. I reinforce that point now. Car alarms can be silenced under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include
	"noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in the street".
	It allows local authorities to enter or open a vehicle, if necessary by force, to silence an alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that point, but suggested that the legislation was not working. However, I suggest that we should not consider whether that legislation is working, but the extent to which a real problem exists. He will know that consultation on the elements that form the Bill arose from considerable discussion with local authorities, and that the provisions are based on problems with which local authorities must deal after the public have brought them to their attention.
	It is worth pointing out that under the Police Reform Act 2002, the police can seize any vehicle that causes annoyance or nuisance. It must also be borne in mind that there might be occasions when a car alarm needs to sound for longer than 90 seconds— for example, if it detects continued interference. Additionally, establishing requirements for the duration of alarms and assessing that during MOT tests could generate a lot of alarm noise around MOT stations, which might not be all that popular.
	The hon. Gentleman told us about the experience in New York, so he might be interested in some of the findings from this country, as they come from rather closer to home—the area in which he wishes to legislate. In 1999–2000, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs national noise attitude survey questioned 2,849 people—I am not sure where the 2,850th person, to allow the figures to be rounded up, was. One question was:
	"When you are at home, how much do you personally feel bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from car alarms?"
	The UK results were 39 per cent. "not at all", 13 per cent. "a little", 5 per cent. "moderately", 2 per cent. "very", 2 per cent. "extremely" and 40 per cent. "don't hear".
	If we rank specific traffic noise sources in terms of the proportion of respondents bothered, annoyed or disturbed, we get an interesting hierarchy of complaints. At the top, at 34 per cent., are vehicles accelerating or going too fast; private cars and taxis are at 27 per cent.; heavy lorries are at 24 per cent.; motor bikes and scooters are at 24 per cent.; music from vehicles is at 23 per cent.; and problems associated with residential estate roads and country lanes are at 22 per cent. Car alarms are only seventh in the hierarchy, at 21 per cent.
	We are not aware of specific statistics on complaints to local authorities about noise from car alarms, because they do not show up on current record keeping and reporting statistics. However, the complaint does not seem to get the attention from local authorities that the hon. Gentleman gives to it.

Norman Baker: I challenge the Minister's logic. The fact that six things are higher on the list does not mean that the seventh, about which 21 per cent. have complained, should not be dealt with. It is a curious logic to say that we should deal only with the top one or two on a list. There is an issue to address. Many people are irritated by car alarms, and the Minister should be less complacent.

Alun Michael: I am not being complacent. I am saying that measures are in place to allow local authorities and the police to tackle the issue when it is a real problem. I tried to give a sense of proportion to the extent to which it is a nuisance. Clearly, it is a nuisance in some circumstances, and provisions are available to use in those cases.
	The new clauses are not appropriate because their provisions could be achieved by changing relevant regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988. More importantly—this would be a serious concern for the House—they would involve the use of primary legislation to amend secondary legislation made under a different Act. That would result in amendments that could be amended or revoked only by primary legislation, while the rest of the regulations would still be amendable or revocable by secondary legislation. That would produce an unworkable hybrid.
	I acknowledge the enthusiasm with which the hon. Gentleman tries to address the problem in his private Member's Bill and in the new clauses, and the way in which he has pursued the problem. My point is that if more action needs to be taken—although that does not come through strongly in the consultations that we have undertaken or in the views of the Local Government Association—the means are to hand. The hon. Gentleman will clearly pursue the matter further in his private Member's Bill and will receive a response to that when it is debated in due course, but the provisions are already in place. If a local authority has a problem, it can tackle it.
	The primary problem is that the new clauses are not appropriate. They would require primary legislation to amend secondary legislation under a different Act, and that makes them totally unworkable as a proposition. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded, as he has a talent for doing, in airing the issue, but I hope that he accepts my problem with the technicalities, if not the principles, behind the new clauses. He raises his concerns quite genuinely, but I urge him to withdraw the motion.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for considering the issues. I am always happy to accept that anything tabled by people who are not on the Government Benches may be imperfect, because we do not have the advantage of a parliamentary draftsman. He knows that the reason for tabling amendments and new clauses is to raise issues. We do not necessarily expect them to be adopted by the Government—although I always remain hopeful that that will be the case.
	The Minister addressed one issue—the problem of noise nuisance, which is, after all, the primary purpose of this part of the Bill. I do not accept that the nuisance is as limited as he suggests. I have had correspondence from people up and down the country saying, "Thank God someone's raising the problem." Those of us who have followed the issue have had some indication that there is popular support for further measures to tackle car alarms. It may well be the case that for many people that has never been an issue, but for some it is a big nuisance and affects their quality of life dramatically. It is incumbent on us to find a way to help them, and I am sorry that the Minister did not come up with an alternative.
	The Minister says that relevant provisions exist in legislation enacted in the past 10 to 15 years. I do not agree that they are effective. I do not agree that the police are interested. They are stretched—overstretched, one might say—and their general response when an environmental health issue arises is to refer people to the local council. I spoke to Sussex police about car alarms. Their standard response when they are telephoned is to assume that it is a false alarm and refer people to the council unless there is immediate evidence that someone is breaking into a car. If someone rings up and says, "I can hear a car alarm," Sussex police say, "Ring the council." The police assume that no crime is being committed. The nuisance issue is not as minimal as the Minister suggests.
	The provisions are not effective because they rely on councils taking action. They invariably take a long time before they do so, because if they responded immediately every time they were called out to a car alarm, they would do little else. I am not convinced that current legislation is effective in dealing with the nuisance.
	The Minister did not refer to my point that car alarms, as used, are largely ineffective in preventing—

Alun Michael: I did.

Norman Baker: I beg to differ. It passed me by. I do not mean to be discourteous, but the Minister concentrated on the nuisance rather than the crime aspect.

Alun Michael: I concentrated on the nuisance aspect because that is what is in the Bill. I also acknowledged that there is a wide range of other ways of preventing car crime and that there are effective options and means for people to consider.

Norman Baker: The Minister did say that, and I am happy to accept his point. However, he did not conclude, as I hoped he might, that the new clauses—or at least the spirit behind them—would propel manufacturers to consider more effective, readily available and comprehensively applied ways of limiting car crime. Manufacturers are resting on their laurels with existing car alarms. They are covered by insurance companies. The manufacturers say that they have done their job and can tick the box, but they are not doing people who buy cars a service and providing decent effective alarms. The spirit behind the new clauses would have the effect of driving manufacturers further along that road. The need to do that has not been fully accepted.
	However, I have had my run around the track. I may get another one—who knows?—if my Bill's Second Reading on 18 March is successful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 99
	 — 
	Abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 73, line 23, at end insert—
	'(6)   In proceedings against a person under sub-paragraph (4) for enforcement of a charge, it is a defence for the person to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent abandonment of his trolleys.'.
	Local authorities are involved in a revenue-raising exercise in respect of abandoned trolleys. I am reliably informed that shopping trolleys are more of a problem than airport or railway trolleys, and we want to address supermarket trolleys in particular.
	Local authorities currently send invoices to retailers for amounts between £50 and £2,000 per retail unit for the cost of trolley recovery, storage and disposal. One can imagine why retailers are already taking steps to prevent the abandonment of trolleys, as even £50 per trolley represents a significant loss. Retailers and DEFRA have identified a lack of communication between local authorities and retailers who are not alerted to the problem despite taking reasonable steps to manage their shopping trolleys. The amendment would encourage partnerships between retailers and local authorities to identify the problem and find a common solution, instead of a local authority sending an invoice to retailers without first making them aware of the problem.
	The issue has been identified as a problem by at least one major supermarket company, which has worked with the British Retail Consortium in undertaking an effective exercise alerting us to the dangers of the omission from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Alun Michael: It is interesting that on the issue of chewing gum the hon. Lady wanted to add to the burdens on business, but she takes a different view on this clause. She was quite wrong, and under a misapprehension, when she suggested that our approach was inflexible. I must resist the amendment because the intention of the clause is to place responsibility on trolley owners. The regulatory impact assessment accompanying the Bill estimates that the overall cost to local authorities of dealing with abandoned trolleys is of the order of £2 million. That is currently paid for by the taxpayer, but I consider that it is reasonable for businesses to pay a higher proportion of that cost. That does not mean that the approach is inflexible or that this is merely a matter of sending letters or a demand for money with menaces, as the hon. Lady implied.
	We have made it absolutely clear that through guidance we will encourage local authorities and retailers to work together to reduce trolley losses, such as through the installation of wheel-locking devices. The Government have encouraged that approach in many circumstances, and it is in the interests of the retail trade as well as of local authorities. The schedule already allows local authorities to approve trolley collection schemes and to agree not to impose charges. The whole point is that that is a matter for the local authority to decide in relation to local circumstances. The hon. Lady seems not to understand that the Bill allows and encourages a partnership approach involving businesses and local authorities. The guidance will encourage that approach. I say to her strongly that accepting her amendment would be a retreat from the encouragement of the partnership approach.

Valerie Davey: The Minister may be aware that in connection with the "Living Rivers" project in the Bristol area recently, 135 trolleys were rescued. The cost of storing and disposing of them was considerable. However, that did not happen without contact being made with supermarkets and their being aware of technical devices that lock wheels when trolleys go beyond the perimeters of premises. Is that not to be applauded, and could not other supermarkets do the same?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes the point precisely: a partnership approach at local level can make an enormous difference and there are mechanisms that can be used. This is not just a question of fines or of putting burdens on business, but of asking business to work with local authorities. I recently experienced something similar when I took part in a study of the way in which voluntary action is cleaning up the River Thames. Trolleys were in evidence, along with all sorts of things that would be a great shock to anybody—spoiling the main river running through our capital city. I have seen the same in my city of Cardiff. It is sad when major cities and environments that should be enjoyable for everybody are spoiled by trolleys.
	I do not seek to place the blame on the supermarkets alone, because the real problem is clearly individuals taking trolleys and leaving them in inappropriate places. A partnership between the local authority and business can achieve the implementation of mechanisms of the sort that my hon. Friend described, to discourage bad behaviour and to try to avoid the defacing of the local environment by trolleys—trying to achieve what we all want: better behaviour and less degradation of the local environment. That is what most of the measures in the Bill are aimed at, and it is why they have received such support from people such as my hon. Friend, and the many hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading.
	I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Vale of York not to put inappropriate burdens on business. I share that desire. That is why the schedule creates conditions for partnership and encourages local authorities and business to get together to create the right environment locally, for the benefit of business and of everyone in the locality.

Anne McIntosh: I listened very carefully to the Minister, but I regret to say that he is plain wrong. If he really is saying that Members on both sides of the House want to promote better behaviour, we should be seeking to reward those who are taking measures to retain trolleys on their premises. Let us take the classic case of Morrisons, which is a very good local supermarket where I live in North Yorkshire, although now that it has taken over Safeway, its methods will benefit many more parts of the country. I do not have shares in Morrisons, so I can say that. It has established a practice of inserting £1 to take a trolley, which can be reclaimed when the trolley is redeposited. We want such good practice to be rewarded.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady was engaged in deep discussion when I made the point earlier. I do not think that she appreciates the fact that the schedule allows local authorities to enter into partnership approaches and therefore to lighten the burdens on business while tackling the issue. Does she believe that the burden should continue to fall on the council tax payer rather than following the principle that she mentioned earlier—that the polluter pays? Partnership between the local authority and business should be the method used to eradicate the problem, as the schedule allows.

Anne McIntosh: I again cite the experience of Morrisons, although I believe that other companies, too, pursue that responsible policy.

Alun Michael: It is in the schedule.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister may say that, but if he reads between the lines of the regulatory impact assessment, he will conclude that the Government are imposing a burden too far, and too extensive, on business. Businesses have quantified that in answer to me: up to £2,000 per retail unit. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 281.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 103
	 — 
	Sections 101 And 102: Supplementary

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 76, line 40, after 'cases)', insert '—
	(a)   '.
	No. 39, in page 76, line 41, leave out ', (fb)'.
	No. 40, in page 76, line 41, at end insert
	', and
	(b)   after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aza)   in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (fb) of section 79(1) above except where—
	(i)   the artificial light is emitted from industrial, trade or business premises, or
	(ii)   the artificial light (not being light to which sub-paragraph (i) applies) is emitted by lights used for the purpose only of illuminating an outdoor relevant sports facility;".'.
	No. 41, in page 76, line 41, at end insert—
	'(2A)   After section 80(8) insert—
	"(8A)   For the purposes of subsection (8)(aza) a relevant sports facility is an area, with or without structures, that is used when participating in a relevant sport, but does not include such an area comprised in domestic premises.
	(8B)   For the purposes of subsection (8A) "relevant sport" means a sport that is designated for those purposes by order made by the Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to Wales.
	A sport may be so designated by reference to its appearing in a list maintained by a body specified in the order.
	(8C)   In subsection (8A) "domestic premises" means—
	(a)   premises used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling, or
	(b)   land or other premises belonging to, or enjoyed with, premises so used.".'.
	No. 42, in page 76, line 43, after 'cases)', insert '—
	(a)   '.
	No. 43, in page 76, line 44, leave out ', (fb)'.
	No. 44, in page 76, line 44, at end insert
	', and
	(b)   after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aza)   in the case of a nuisance falling within paragraph (fb) of section 79(1) above except where—
	(i)   the artificial light is emitted from industrial, trade or business premises, or
	(ii)   the artificial light (not being light to which sub-paragraph (i) applies) is emitted by lights used for the purpose only of illuminating an outdoor relevant sports facility;".'.
	No. 45, in page 76, line 44, at end insert—
	'(4)   After section 82(10) insert—
	"(10A)   For the purposes of subsection (10)(aza) "relevant sports facility" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 80(8)(aza)." '.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Third Reading of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. The Bill addresses the real concerns of people in urban and in rural areas, and I am delighted to have been associated with it. It has arrived here not only through the drafting at a policy level of the issues that it addresses, but from a great deal of consultation and discussion, particularly with the Local Government Association and with those who have to deal with the practicalities of enforcement.
	When people are asked what is most important to them about the environment, most mention the state of their own neighbourhood. People want to live in communities that are not blighted by litter, graffiti, fly-posters and burnt-out cars. Rural and urban communities alike see this as a major issue. It is rather sad that the Conservatives' amendment on Second Reading, which demonstrated that they have a complete lack of understanding of the problems in rural and in urban communities, was negative about what the Bill seeks to do.

Derek Conway: The Minister mentioned the consultation that has taken place. I am puzzled by that because he made the same observations in Committee. I wonder whether he would care to comment on an e-mail dated 13 January—after Second Reading—that was sent to me by the National Dog Warden Association and states categorically:
	"The NDWA have not been consulted on this Bill and a number of matters we feel need referring back to the Committee."
	Given that the provisions on the control and care of dogs are being changed, perhaps rightly, for the first time in 100 years, will the Minister explain to the House exactly whom he has been consulting if not the body of people who round up the stray dogs of Britain on our behalf?

Alun Michael: There has been the widest of consultations, including wide public consultation. We have tried to promote discussion around the country from all sorts of organisations. On the provisions on dogs, as I said in Committee two organisations approached me to express concerns—the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. I immediately agreed to meet them to discuss those concerns, which we addressed in Committee. Indeed, amendments to the Bill deal with one specific concern that both organisations expressed—the possibility that there might be the transfer of responsibilities that are currently shared between the police and local authorities without an appropriate transfer of resources. For that reason, I agreed to amend the Bill in order to state that the commencement of that provision would take place only once agreement had been reached on the appropriate transfer of resources. I gather that discussions are proceeding.
	Generally, there has been a welcome for the fact that under the Bill one organisation will be responsible for dealing with strays. The organisation that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) mentioned saw fit to concentrate on briefing Opposition Front Benchers, but there are other organisations concerned with the future of dogs. The issues have been discussed at length with the police and local authorities, which have the greatest experience of dealing directly with the problems of strays. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, frustrated by being unable to debate specific amendments in relation to dogs, brought us back to the issue that has caused him concern, and did so in an appropriate manner.
	The Conservatives made a major mistake in opposing the Bill when we first had our discussions on Second Reading. We believe that the problems that it addresses are of direct concern to urban and rural communities throughout the country. That is why we see it as such a priority and why it is an integral part of the Government's wider strategy on the environment and community safety. We want people to feel safe in their local community, and that can happen only if the environment is treated with respect. Fly-posting, fly-tipping, graffiti and other things that damage the local environment make people not only feel that they are in a place that is not cared for, but that is not a safe place to be.
	The purpose of the Bill is to improve the local environment as it directly affects people's quality of life, wherever they live. Neglecting the local environment creates a sense of unease and that "nobody cares around here", which directly leads too many people to say, "I don't need to care." That can lead to escalating problems of antisocial behaviour. There is an important link between the state of the local environment, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. That is why the Bill takes a strategic, cross-Government approach to the local environmental issues that affect our quality of life. I am particularly pleased by the joint working at official and ministerial levels between colleagues at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, as well as the National Assembly for Wales, which has some responsibilities in relation to Wales.
	The Bill forms a key part of wider Government action. It will be the backbone of our cross-cutting "Cleaner, Safer, Greener" agenda, which, again, is dealt with by several Departments. It tackles antisocial behaviour by building on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It also links closely with a number of other policies that we are taking forward, such as on abandoned cars. This is not a single stick approach. We are approaching this not only from the point of view of legislation, but of working closely with local authorities on improving performance, working through the best value agenda and the use of comprehensive performance assessment to place an emphasis on local environmental quality. Our work with the Local Government Association, in particular, has been very productive; I am pleased by its cross-party support for the approaches embodied in the Bill.
	The Bill provides enhanced powers for local authorities and the Environment Agency to tackle local environmental quality and antisocial behaviour. It is the result of two years of intensive consultation, including our "Clean Neighbourhoods" consultation last summer, a series of road shows around the country with practitioners, and many meetings with community groups, local authorities and other organisations. I am also pleased that it is complementary to other approaches, such as the Home Office's "Together Academy" approach towards promoting local community safety and crime reduction. That placed an emphasis on dealing with local environmental crime and the two approaches are therefore complementary. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities approach again includes consideration of environmental issues. There is a balance to be struck in regeneration between environmental, economic and social issues. All are complementary.
	Throughout the process, key gaps were identified in the legislation on which local authorities and the Environment Agency rely to deal with the antisocial behaviour that affects the quality of our neighbourhoods. They often find current legislation difficult to use. It is not wrong, but perhaps there are bureaucratic obstacles to ensuring that requirements are enforced or that available mechanisms are used effectively. The Bill therefore responds directly to calls from those agencies for improved, more practical powers—better ways of doing things.
	The Bill creates the environment for better partnership working between local authorities and the police, together with the local communities that they both serve. It will involve parish councils, local businesses and community groups in the fight against antisocial behaviour and help create strong, healthy local communities. Some parish councils are small and some do not want to use the powers for which the measure provides. However, many will want to exercise leadership locally. That is being encouraged through the quality parish council scheme and the work that we are undertaking with the National Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks. I pay tribute to the engagement of both organisations with trying to improve the quality of leadership at that most local level of our democracy.

Nicholas Winterton: A year or so ago, the Minister presented a quality award to the Poynton-with-Worth parish council. It was very grateful and so was I. Will he give an assurance that active councils that want to take up the extra powers will have the resources to do so? Sadly, everything for which the Government legislate has a resource implication.

Alun Michael: In some cases there is no resource implication, but in others powers need to be given to enable people to do things more simply. The way in which parish councils can undertake their work depends on the atmosphere of co-operation that we and the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association engender through a contractual arrangement between the principal local authorities in an area and the parish and town councils that want to take their responsibilities further.
	Local government in this country has come to recognise the value of the contribution that parish and town councils can make to achieving outcomes. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) may agree that there is sometimes conflict and competition between different levels of government. Counties and districts have not always treated each other with mutual respect, love and affection. Principal local authorities have certainly not always fully appreciated the potential of local councils—the parish, town or community councils—in Wales. Sometimes the very local organisations have tended to be too inward looking, concentrating on the capacity to study the minutes of the previous meeting and say no to whatever is proposed for the area.
	I believe that that has changed. Many principal local authorities have changed their attitude towards parish councils. That has been reciprocated. For example, parish councils have been encouraged through the parish plans approach not to wait and react to applications in their area, but to begin to consider the sort of future that they want. Poynton-with-Worth is a good example. That parish council has tried to look forward. Thinking through what is wanted for the parish in the long term helps to inform the principal authorities' decisions. That constitutes the partnership approach that it is in the interests of all parties to encourage.
	The Bill shows respect for parish councils' capacity to undertake duties when they want and are able to do that. They are not forced to do so. The measure further encourages partnership by, for example, recognising the principal authorities' greater capacity for enforcement, thus allowing parish or town councils to exercise their powers, if taken up, in partnership rather than as if the different levels of local authorities existed in separate vacuums. They all exist together and, at their best, complement each other effectively. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. He is rightly proud of the performance of the Poynton-with-Worth council, where I enjoyed a productive visit and much discussion.
	The Bill takes a strategic approach to engaging everyone in the work of improving the local environment and reducing crime and disorder in the local community. It especially extends the objectives of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which are led by the police and local authorities, specifically to include local environmental crime.
	The Bill also provides better tools for local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with fly-tipping, litter, fly-posting, abandoned vehicles and other nuisances that blight our communities. Talking to people in my area and places such as Splott, which has experienced antisocial behaviour and environmental degradation, or constituents who complain that new graffiti is not a coincidental to the return of someone who has been in one of Her Majesty's institutions for some time, underlines the importance of making connections and ensuring that we create a better environment. I hear similar comments when I speak to farmers or those in rural communities who say that their areas are often degraded through fly-tipping or abandoned vehicles. Providing better tools for local authorities to tackle those problems is important. Local authorities and the Environment Agency have a will to tackle those issues better.
	Throughout the Bill, we make greater use of fixed penalty fines and give local authorities the power to adapt them to fit with their local priorities. That is important. Fixed penalty fines can be imposed without the bureaucracy and obstacles that exist if people have to be taken to court. Of course, the right must exist for them to choose not to pay the fixed penalty, and thus for the option of prosecution to kick in. In some circumstances, it is up to local authorities to determine the level of the fine in accordance with their experience of what works best and the nature of the problems in their area. We are also giving greater powers to parish and town councils so that the most local level of our democratic structures can play a part in making things better. They will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices for litter, graffiti, fly-posting and dog offences.
	Doing nothing is not an option. Dealing with local environmental quality and antisocial behaviour costs agencies about £3.4 billion per year. That is a massive amount of money and a burden that is ultimately borne by the taxpayer and the council tax payer. Abandoned vehicles cost local authorities £26 million in 2002–03. That is the cost of removal, clear-up and disposal. Even more significant is the damage to the morale of the local community. The measures in the Bill will help us to tackle these problems and to reduce the costs involved.
	I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), has been a great supporter of the Bill, and I am delighted that he is here in the Chamber with us as we reach the latter stages of its consideration on Third Reading.
	The Bill is a major part of the Government's strategy for improving the environment, for developing a more sustainable future and for dealing with antisocial behaviour. It will help to ensure a real improvement to the quality of life of many people in communities throughout the country, and I commend it to the House.

Anne McIntosh: I echo the nuances expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). These proceedings have been marked by a flawed consultation procedure. To take the example of dogs, it is beyond belief that the one organisation that has been responsible for looking after stray dogs—the National Dog Warden Association—was not even consulted or called in to see the Minister until we raised the issue in Committee. Many of the offences in the Bill already exist. I pay tribute to the Conservative councils that are implementing to the letter the powers provided in previous legislation—notably the Environmental Protection Act, which was passed in 1990 under a Conservative Administration—to enable them to fight environmental crime.
	The cumbersome legislation before us today has not been given adequate scrutiny. It was deprived of such scrutiny in Committee, and I do not recall such an arbitrary use of knives and guillotines as we have seen today. We have been left with two hours for our Third Reading debate, and I hope that that will give us time to cover some of the remaining points. We were not allowed the time to give the Bill in-depth scrutiny in Committee or on Report, however, and the record will show our disappointment in that regard.
	I want to talk briefly about costs. The Minister has referred in Committee and today to the reliance that the Government are putting on fixed penalty notices. I have a table here that has been prepared by the House of Commons Library, which is known for its impartiality and independence of thought and research. First, however, I must point out that as the Minister has failed to answer certain questions, either in Committee or on Report, I have taken the opportunity to ask the Solicitor-General what guidance she has provided to the Crown Prosecution Service on legislative provisions introduced since 1997 that involve a reversal of the burden of proof in environmental crimes—we learned today that that applies primarily to fixed penalty notices—and to ask her to make a statement to help us to understand such provisions. This was obviously a source of embarrassment to the Government. The Minister said that he had been talking to people in the countryside, but I am surprised that anyone there would want to talk to him at all since the Government have imposed the ban on hunting through their very ill-thought-out Bill.

Alun Michael: First, the Bill to which the hon. Lady refers is not ill-thought-out. It is very practical and straightforward and, as long as people want to obey the law, they will not have a problem in doing so. Secondly, people in the countryside are far more exercised about fly-tipping and the other issues that are dealt with in the Bill. Those matters are a bigger priority for rural people, as they are for urban people.

Anne McIntosh: I shall return to the serious issue of fly-tipping later.
	The Solicitor-General did not wish to make a statement today. In fact, she did not have to answer my question until today, which was probably very convenient. She has refused to give the information that I requested, and has promised to write to me shortly. It is most regrettable that the Government are not going to provide us—and the wider British public—with the information that we need to form a view on the Bill.   On the existing offences that are being extended, we believe that the categories involved are very confusing. The Bill creates three separate categories: nuisance parking; abandoned vehicles; and illegally parked vehicles. We learned on Second Reading that the provisions on abandoned vehicles will be purely discretionary. It will be entirely up to a local authority to decide if it wishes to apply them. We are also told that if fixed penalty notices are paid at a rate of 75per cent., that is quite high. However, at the last Home Office questions we learned from Ministers that Home Office fixed penalty notices are paid at a rate of only 70 per cent. So, assuming that that rate reached the giddy heights of 75 per cent. in the first year in respect of the provisions on abandoned vehicles, local authorities in England and Wales would raise only £1.68 million across the board. The Library note tells us that the estimated cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles—this is from the Local Government Association briefing, which was provided to us in December for use in Committee—is £34 million. That would leave a £32 million shortfall on that one provision alone.
	In Committee, we were staggered to learn from Westminster city council that including chewing gum and redefining it in the description of litter will increase the cost to that council to more than £9 million, yet we see in this well-crafted table from the Library that it will get no extra receipts under the fixed penalty notices. It will have to pay that additional £9 million bill due to that one redefinition alone.

Alun Michael: It really is irresponsible of the hon. Lady to repeat suggestions that have already been rebutted. She knows full well, because I made this absolutely clear in Committee, that all the Bill does in relation to chewing gum is ensure that those who are in any doubt about whether dropped chewing gum is litter have the matter clarified. The suggestion that it involves additional costs or additional requirements is an error on the part of Westminster city council. I have pointed out to her previously that her reliance on Westminster city council as her only source of advice and suggestions is a mistake on her part.

Anne McIntosh: On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) quoted a similar figure from Kensington and Chelsea, so we are in no doubt as to what the costs are. The Minister obviously was not listening when I said this very day from this very Dispatch Box that he has singularly failed to clarify that point, which involves the staggering sum of £9 million.
	I commend the Library table to the House, because on fixed penalty notices, assuming a 75 per cent. take-up rate on street litter clearing notices, only £75,000 would be earned as revenue across the board, whereas the total cost would be £342 million. That is a new figure.

Nicholas Winterton: I have been listening to this part of the debate very carefully, and if the Minister needs to intervene again I hope my hon. Friend will give way.
	I was under the impression that the Minister said that the cost of removing chewing gum does not incur an additional cost to local authorities, but I can only say from my experience in the Macclesfield borough, where the shopping precinct is blighted by chewing gum, that adequately and properly removing it from the pedestrian areas involves a huge cost. If I have misheard the Minister I apologise, but I hope he can clarify precisely what he said.

Anne McIntosh: I am happy for the Minister to clarify what he said, but I think my hon. Friend is right.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has quite misunderstood what I said. I was referring to the provisions of the Bill, which do not change in any way the onus on local authorities to remove staining—a very expensive and difficult problem for all local authorities. He is absolutely right on that. The claim made by Westminster city council and conveyed by its messenger on the Conservative Front Bench in Committee was that the Bill will place on it a new obligation to remove those stains. That is not the case. We simply discovered that some local authorities were being advised that there was a doubt as to whether chewing gum when dropped was a piece of litter. The answer is that it is already, but the Bill puts that beyond all doubt. That is the only change in relation to the issue, but it was misinterpreted by Westminster city council.

Anne McIntosh: Without going over the ground that we covered in Committee, I think that Westminster city council has a valid point. The point that I made on Report was simply that, due to the size of a blob of chewing gum, it is difficult to catch someone in the act of dropping it. That is the point that Westminster city council raised through us in Committee and on Report today. Unfortunately, when someone steps on chewing gum as soon as it has been dropped but before it has been identified as litter, a stain is left on the floor. The Minister is being disingenuous in raising the issue, which will doubtless be revisited when the Bill reaches the other place for, I hope, more in-depth scrutiny.
	The Minister spoke about the serious issue of fly-tipping, which according to Environment Agency estimates, costs local authorities £100 million to £150 million to remove 50,000 fly-tipping incidents a year. The Minister mocked my claim that the Bill pits urban against rural areas and put it on record again today that the Environment Agency is responsible for removing fly-tipping from publicly owned land in a town or urban area. In relation to a piece of land being rural and privately owned—our amendment on the matter was rejected—the Environment Agency, which is responsible for implementing this part, has said:
	"There have been a number of cases where the landowner has been a party to the unlawful deposit. However, in most instances the landowner is a victim of this crime and may either choose to pay for the clean-up themselves or else do nothing. The Courts may award costs if these have been presented during the prosecution case, but cannot require the wastes to be removed or the land cleaned up."
	I submit that that means that it is all right for the Environment Agency to pay for and use local council tax payer's money to remove waste that has been fly-tipped on to publicly owned land in an urban area, but it is not empowered, under either existing legislation or the Bill, to so relieve a perfectly innocent landowner who has had no knowledge of, and has not given his consent to, having waste fly-tipped on to his land. It is the landowner's choice to remove that from his privately owned land, and he must bear the expense. That is distressing and unacceptable, and has been a source of great concern to both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association.

Paddy Tipping: The hon. Lady makes a false argument. In urban areas, there is both publicly and privately owned property, as in rural areas. The Bill applies across the board, and it is a false dichotomy to pit urban people against rural people, which shows that she is wrongly and falsely pursuing another interest.

Anne McIntosh: I have had excellent co-operation with ENCAMS and the Environment Agency in my area. They are alert to the fact that the Government have signed up to a number of directives that have led to an increasing incidence of fly-tipping, often with a criminal element involved. That is why we take this issue seriously. The onus should be on the Environment Agency to remove this stuff, and if it can identify the criminals who have placed it on private land in the country, it should prosecute them, which would help to defray the costs. Signing up to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the landfill directive has seen increasing amounts of white goods being fly-tipped in rural areas. As co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes is no longer allowed, there are not sufficient sites to take those and landfill is closing down. I believe that we will return to this issue ad nauseum. The Bill provided an opportunity to rectify that balance and ensure that landowners were put in the same situation as others.
	It is fair to add that the National Farmers Union welcomes many aspects of the Bill, although it has raised a number of concerns with us. I want to put those on record, because the Government failed to consider them sympathetically and act on the amendments that we tabled on the NFU's behalf. On gating orders, the union said:
	"It is unclear on whom the responsibility of the installation, maintenance and operation of the barrier or gate would lie. This issue needs to be clarified."
	Clause 2, entitled "Gating orders", did not clarify it.
	On clause 11, "Notice of removal", the NFU said:
	"Vehicles abandoned on farm land blight the countryside, have the potential to cause pollution and are a hazard, yet do not seem to be addressed."
	Part 3, which deals with "Litter and refuse", includes clause 20, "Litter clearing notices". The NFU
	"would like to see land where illegal events, such as raves or illegal encampments have occurred included in this list."
	So far, they have not been.
	Part 4 deals with "Graffiti and other defacement". We were not permitted to reach it today, although there were concerns about it, too. The NFU mentioned
	"a requirement that any unauthorised advert should be removed. Farmers working land that"
	—by its very nature—
	"is widely spread, not easily accessible or infrequently visited may not be aware of an illegal advert."
	The NFU believes that farmers could be seen to be being victimised. The union would have welcomed Government guidance enabling authorities to deal with illegal deposits of waste, but I made that point at some length a moment ago.
	As for clauses 42 and 43 and fly-tipping,
	"The NFU is concerned that the identification of the true culprit can be difficult to establish, and that the landowner or occupier is more easily established . . . The NFU would urge that landowners and occupiers should not have to pay for costs of enforcement, recovery, or clean-up until the final outcome of any appeal is known."
	Clause 50 is entitled "Power to require owner of land to remove waste".
	The NFU
	"strongly believes that clear guidelines should be put in place"
	so that landowners and occupiers are not required
	"to remove the fly-tipped material simply on the basis that the perpetrator cannot be found. Enforcing agencies"
	—in this case the Environment Agency—
	"should be required to show that all reasonable measures have been taken to identify and act against the culprits."

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an interesting case, but because of my other activities in this place and because I was not on the Standing Committee, much of this is new to me. Does she accept that fly-tipping and dumping—dumping cars in the countryside, for instance—and other antisocial acts are a result of people behaving badly? Does she agree that the way in which to deal with that is to impose firm and severe penalties on those who are identified and taken to court for such offences? I have not heard what we will do about offences that desecrate the countryside.
	When I go home on a Thursday night, the first thing I do on Friday morning is clean up the litter outside my house—litter dumped not by the local authority, not by government, but by people who do not appreciate the value of the countryside, or people in urban areas who do not appreciate the environment in which they live.

Anne McIntosh: I think my hon. Friend will find that the Bill is silent on that, particularly cases involving privately owned land. If the perpetrator cannot be found, it is the landowner's responsibility to remove the waste.

Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? When a number of my constituents contacted me about a very nasty serial fly-tipper, I took great pleasure in relaying to local police what that individual was doing. When he eventually came up before the courts, he was fined the measly sum of £500 and asked to do some community service. He has now returned to fly-tipping just as badly as before, and we hope to catch him again. Does my hon. Friend agree that the courts need to take note of the genuine concern felt by all hon. Members in all parts of the House about the gravity of the situation, and that the courts are perhaps not taking this issue seriously enough?

Anne McIntosh: The problem seems to be apprehending the perpetrator, whether that involves seizing the vehicle or finding out who dumped on the land, the issue about which we have expressed greatest concern. That remains a flaw in the Bill's provisions on fly-tipping. The same is true of fly-posting: we tabled a number of amendments on over-posting, which, regrettably, the Government did not see fit to accept. However, all is not lost, and I hope that it will be possible further to scrutinise this issue in the other place.
	I turn to the last point that the NFU asked us to take up, which, again, we were unable to discuss because we did not reach the amendment on dogs. I hope that the Minister agrees that when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is fully implemented, it may become apparent that there are specific areas of farmland where dog control orders will be required to combat dog-related nuisance. I hope that the Government will seek to fulfil expectations in that regard.
	On provisions relating to dogs, I yield to none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who has done sterling work in this regard. I apologise to him and to the House for the fact that because of the way in which the knives fell—the decision was not ours but the Government's—we were unable to move and debate amendment No. 11. There is a real need for such an amendment because the Bill is silent on how local authorities will implement such provisions. As my hon. Friend is aware, not every local authority will have a dog warden or access to kennels, and most will not provide a 24-hour dog warden service, as is currently provided. The Bill will require the provision of kennels to house stray dogs in each local authority area, and it will require the provision of treatment for injured dogs—and, regrettably, the putting down of dogs that are too badly injured. We did not have a huge amount of time to discuss that in Committee.

Derek Conway: I read the deliberations of the Committee on which my hon. Friend did such a sterling job in very limited time; indeed, only about 45 minutes were spent on the subject. Does she share my amazement that no real figures have yet been given, to the House or the Committee, on the additional costs to local authorities? The Dogs Trust has estimated a cost of £13.2 million if just one additional dog warden per local authority were appointed. I hope that the Minister might be able to put a bit of flesh on the bones of those costs. I could not find such figures in the Committee's deliberations, although my hon. Friend was clearly pressing the Minister.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. The Library has come up with a figure for dog control offences. Receipts from the issuing of fixed penalty notices at a rate of 75 per cent. would yield only £112,500 across all local authorities in England and Wales, whereas the actual cost would be between £1.8 million and £13.2 million. Those figures represent the estimated cost to police, plus the cost of one dog warden at £30,000 per annum, multiplied by 440 local authority areas in England and Wales. That information is taken from the Dogs Trust briefing to Committee members. I hope that it assists my hon. Friend.

Alun Michael: I hate to interrupt the conversation between the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), but I do not want the House inadvertently to be misled. Section 149(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires any stray dogs detained by a local authority
	"to be properly fed and maintained."
	That clearly includes the treatment of sick and injured dogs. That is why, had we reached the clause that the hon. Lady mentioned, I would have explained why it was unnecessary.
	Secondly, the authority's duty to deal with stray dogs is clearly set out in the 1990 Act. When the Bill comes into force, local authorities will be solely responsible—a decision greatly welcomed by the police. As I have already explained, commencement of this part of the Bill will be dependent on agreement over the transfer of resources, which will enable the local authority to undertake those duties. The duty is not restricted to daylight hours, so local authorities will need to have suitable arrangements in place to deal with stray dogs on a 24-hour basis. It does not necessarily involve kennels; arrangements with the local vet could be utilised, as already happens in some rural areas. These are all practical issues and I have to point out that they were debated in Committee.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister confirms the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and I have consistently made: either there was sufficient consultation and the Bill has been well thought out in a consistent and comprehensive manner, or the Bill has been rushed through—[Interruption.] It goes to the core of the matter. If the Minister wants the Bill to succeed, there must surely be a mechanism for approving the transfer of resources. Very helpfully from the point of view of Conservative Members, the Minister has highlighted the fact that there is no guarantee of the transfer of resources, as it is currently up for discussion. I raised that matter in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup raised it on Second Reading. It should not have been necessary to delay implementation of this part of the Bill.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady is wrong yet again. It was the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust that raised the matter directly with me and I undertook to take their concerns seriously, as I made clear in Committee. I then tabled an amendment to ensure that commencement of this part of the Bill can happen only once the transfer of resources has been agreed. It is all very straightforward.

Anne McIntosh: It was so straightforward that the Minister did not consult or seek the views of the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust or the National Dog Wardens Association. What confidence can we and the great British public have in a Bill that has been so shoddily thought through and so poorly consulted on that we are where we are now?

Derek Conway: I must tell the House that I do not know how my hon. Friend has managed to stay so calm. The Minister intervened to say that it would all have been covered in earlier consideration had we got to it. We did not get to it and my hon. Friend could not move her amendment because of the guillotine imposed on the House by the Minister. The fact that we have not properly considered the details has nothing to do with my hon. Friend: it has happened because the Minister has managed to whip through a curtailment of our debate. She is absolutely right to put the Minister on the spot, which is supposed to be the point of a Standing Committee and of our remaining stages. I hope that those in the other place will read our deliberations and press the Minister taking the Bill through the upper House. I have read what this Minister said in Committee and it is not the same as what he is saying to the House now.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed, and it is important to place on the record the fact that consultations and meetings were not sought. It is unacceptable to be at the final stages of the Bill's passage through this House without having received a firm and clear commitment from the Minister that a transfer of resources will take place. Is it good enough at this stage to say that the transfers are still being discussed? We have been left with two hours to debate the issues and we were not able to put these matters to a vote earlier.

Liz Blackman: Will the hon. Lady clarify for the House whether she is voting for or against the Bill this evening?

Anne McIntosh: I want to make some progress and it will not be long before the hon. Lady finds out.

Alun Michael: I feel as though I am watching a dog chewing an old bone, because the hon. Lady keeps coming back to issues that have been dealt with time and again. I have made it absolutely clear—we have amended the Bill—that there will be no commencement of the requirement that places responsibility solely in the hands of local authorities until there is agreement on resources. That matter has been dealt with. It is not just a question of an assurance from the Dispatch Box, because we have amended the Bill to deal with the matter following an approach from the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, and my discussions with them.

Anne McIntosh: We can move on, because we agree to disagree.
	I turn to other matters that we were unable to discuss earlier. They include amendments covering graffiti and the huge expense that it causes, as well as the problem not just of fly-posting, but of over-posting. I am delighted that, on this occasion if no other, we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. That is most welcome and we look forward to going into the Division Lobby together.
	I said earlier that all fly-tipped waste should be removed and I referred to amendment No. 11, about dogs. An interesting situation occurred on light pollution. The Minister told us categorically that there was no issue concerning light pollution, particularly from sports pitches and playing fields. Subsequently, Sir Trevor Brooking went to see him; perhaps that was another consultation that did not happen with due diligence and in time for the Committee stage. Two or three weeks ago, we tabled a series of amendments that appear on the amendment paper today. We wanted the opportunity of perhaps pressing them to a Division, but we did not reach them because the guillotines fell inappropriately, too frequently and allowed too little scrutiny of the Bill. Those matters were not discussed sufficiently or were not discussed at all.
	I dwelt at length on costs. The figures collated by the Government and their advisers, ENCAMS, demonstrate that local authorities will be unable to afford to implement the Bill. It is clear that receipts from fixed penalties will contribute only a fraction of the costs involved. Unless the Government are prepared to force local authorities dramatically to increase council tax bills or to offer alternative funding, many of the measures in the Bill will be unenforceable. They are discretionary for the most part, which shows that the Bill has been badly thought out. Its purpose is to grab headlines—it is another of the Government's eye-catching initiatives. Its flaws could not be corrected during the few Committee sittings or the little time available this afternoon and this evening. The Government have failed to listen or to amend the Bill to accommodate any of the concerns and representations raised with Conservative Members. The Bill is in need of further examination. We will not oppose it further in this place, but we hope that the other place will have the scope and time for more in-depth and fuller scrutiny than has been possible today.

Colin Burgon: I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for her contribution. It looks as if someone has been fly-tipping on the Dispatch Box in front of her.
	The Government have had a good record since 1997 on tackling antisocial behaviour and improving the local environment. Those two themes make a valuable contribution to the quality of people's lives. Labour Members recognise that a good quality environment reduces antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. A theory developed in New York was the "broken windows" argument—that the degradation of a place leads to higher levels of crime and disorder. If an area is increasingly neglected, either through lack of individual or community control or neglect by a local authority, people begin to lose confidence about the regulation of their community space and a downward spiral of neglect and disorder is inevitable.
	Underpinning the Bill is the attempt to make a cultural shift in our society, whereby values of respect and responsibility for personal and shared property lead to a decrease in antisocial activity. Most MPs realise from our work in our local communities the central importance of those values for our constituents. We are often told that we should talk more about relevant issues. Few issues are more relevant than those we are discussing today, so I welcome the philosophy behind the Bill as well as some of the specific points that it covers. I am conscious of the time and of the fact that other people want to speak so I shall try to be as brief as possible.
	Central to the Bill is ensuring that crime and disorder reduction partnerships will take into account low level antisocial behaviour and environmental crimes such as littering and graffiti. That sends the important message to people that disfiguring and degrading our local environment is a crime and will be treated as such. We need to get that message across. I welcome the greater powers that will be given to local councils to deal with alleyways affected by antisocial behaviour. I hope that such powers will be used to restrict public access to alleyways that are used to facilitate crime and vandalism. In an experiment in North Whinmoor, in my constituency, the local community, aided by Councillor Pauleen Grahame, has done a great job constructing an alley gate in the area, which has proved a great success.
	Graffiti and fly-posting are other important issues tackled in the Bill. Both contribute to poor environmental quality and neighbourhood decline. I have to admit that I struggle to appreciate the artistic merit in some of the works of graffiti that I see in our public spaces—be they parks, community buildings or the sides of railway routes. I note that local councils will be able to vary the fixed penalty amounts for graffiti offences, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will exert pressure to ensure that the fines levied are meaningful and not a laughable amount that leads graffiti artists to think that they can carry on their work unhindered.
	I warmly welcome the provisions on fly-posting and advertisements. Councils will be able to recover the costs of removing illegally displayed posters or placards. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will do everything possible to ensure that those powers are vigorously enforced? Increasingly, as we drive along motorways and major routes, we see mobile advertisement boards sprouting up on the sides of old lorries and so on. They blight our local environments and communities.
	I am also concerned about fly-tipping. As my right hon. Friend has a fantastic grasp of geography he will know of the example that I am about to give: Leeds lane in my constituency, which links Wakefield road with Swillington lane—[Interruption.] Yes, that is the one and it is the bane of my life. It is a rural lane overlooking Garforth and I drive along it almost every day that I am in my constituency, and I think that somebody is deliberately trying to psyche me out. Almost every week, household materials are dumped at the side of the footpath. It may be a tribute to the way that Labour is running the economy that baths, fridges, cookers, gas canisters and various bits of furniture are thrown out. Perhaps that just shows how rich our society is. What irritates me is that we never see who is throwing those things away. Should not we invest in a mini CCTV system, which could be hidden in trees or camouflaged in various ways, so that we can track down the people who are responsible? I realise that the police cannot wait at that spot for hours on end, nor can neighbourhood wardens, so let us think creatively and use some money to develop the technology that will catch people who dump rubbish. I offer Leeds lane as a prime site for the Government to make that grand experiment. They will have my full support.
	I welcome the new powers in the Bill, especially those that enable councils and the Environment Agency to recover their investigation and clear-up costs when tackling the problem of fly-posting. I note that local councils will be able to issue fixed penalty notices and keep the receipts from such penalties. I am pleased that the Bill introduces a more effective system to stop, search and seize the vehicles used in illegal waste disposal and gives the courts the power to require the confiscation of the vehicles used in that crime. I hope that we can detect them on Leeds lane.
	I ask the Minister to urge councils to set up a hotline, staffed by someone who is aware of how big a concern this issue is to people. My constituents have often rung the local supposed hotline, which is actually a lukewarm line, to be treated by the person at the other end to a long inquiry, boring questions and so on, when people want action to be taken.
	The Bill covers a wide range of issues, including the problem of dog fouling—an issue that came to my attention in Great Preston, when I spent some time with a ground worker last Friday. This may sound like the ultimate pub quiz question, but I am indebted to the Library for telling me that UK dogs produce 1,000 tonnes of dog mess every day, which is equivalent—the Minister will not believe this—to the total weight of beef imports into the European Union. I have no idea why the Library draws that parallel.
	There are other interesting facts in relation to litter. As I said earlier, I noticed the litter on top of the Opposition Dispatch Box. It is interesting to note that 120 tonnes of cigarette-related litter is discarded on our streets daily and that cigarette litter generates about 40 per cent. of all street litter.
	I also note that the Bill will give councils greater flexibility in dealing with noise nuisance from things such as burglar alarms, which have been mentioned, and from licensed premises that ignore warnings to reduce excessive noise levels. Light pollution is also addressed, particularly with respect to badly positioned security lighting and the glare of unshielded bright lights that cover car parks.
	In contradiction to what the Conservatives have said, this is a good Bill. It follows, from my reading around it, widespread consultation with people. Legislation is important. The Minister talked about joint working with other Departments, but one of the key Departments that may have lost out is the Department for Education and Skills. I honestly believe that there is a place in schools for teaching about the local environment and that that should be part of the school curriculum. "Think globally, act locally" is the slogan, and I wish that we would take that up; but, obviously, what has the greatest role in education is what our parents tell us. I am one of those who was brought up to believe that if we generate rubbish—sweet papers and so on—we should not just drop it on the floor but take it home with us. That may be a homely view of things, but I wish that we could return to that in some respects.
	I will not go on too long, but I wish to note that the Bill aims to create cleaner, safer, greener communities. In my view, that means stronger communities, which is what people like me think that politics is all about. This is a good Bill, and I hope that the Minister will explain, if he makes some further comments in closing the debate, how the £500 million cut in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposed by the Conservative party would damage some of the proposals that we have been discussing tonight.

Sue Doughty: This is an interesting and important Bill, but in some ways we are disappointed because we could have done more to deal with a lot of the issues. The Bill does not go far enough. Nevertheless, stronger fines and longer sentences for those who pollute and measures to seize vehicles that are used to pollute are all absolutely essential. We need not only to fine fly-tippers at a level that would make a real difference to the viability of their business—that is what it is all about— but to make it clear that such actions are environmental crimes and that environmental crimes really matter. They damage our environment; they damage the planet; and they are the sort of thing that should have no place in the modern world. Ours is an overcrowded planet and the harm that we do now not only to the land but to communities in a densely packed island like ours makes a difference, so we need to deal with the people who cause those problems.
	We have some reservations about the Bill, but we are being practical by considering what it needs to do. We need to take a serious look at some other issues. One issue on which we did not table amendments is the problem of train horns. A number of Members get constituents constantly coming to them saying that nuisance is created not only by noise from premises but by things such as train horns which have got so much noisier. The Rail Safety and Standards Board has not taken on board the fact that there are alternative ways of raising alarms that are not so disruptive.
	We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about light pollution. I still feel uncomfortable with the fact that large organisations, such as ports, airports and harbours, have failed to recognise that, although some lighting is necessary for their effective and safe operation, they must do much more to deal with excess light. It often creates misery for the people living close by. Although some organisations take a good look at what they can do to minimise light pollution, not enough is happening. We certainly heard on Second Reading about the people who could see the light from a port—even though it was below the horizon, it still caused a glare.
	We also have concerns about the provisions for fly-tipping. If it occurs on council land, it will be cleaned up. However, if it takes place on private land that belongs to farmers, the National Trust or other large landowning bodies, the landowners will have to pay for the clean-up even though they have done as much as they can to prevent fly-tipping by having proper gates, fencing and padlocks in place. We have not got very far on that. We also wonder how the Environment Agency will pay for the extra duties involved. Nowhere does it say who will pay for the work that the agency does.
	As I said in Committee, I attended a parish council meeting in Worplesden that discussed whether to erect CCTV cameras to identify fly-tippers on the common. Although the council, the police and representatives from the parish were at the meeting, no one from the Environment Agency attended because it was thought that its staff were already overstretched and could do no more to help. In other words, no more work was going to be placed on the agency even though it had responsibility and could play a strong role in this issue. I am on record as saying that I am a strong fan of the agency, but I am not an uncritical fan. It needs resources and good calibre staff if it is going to do its work and if the Bill is to be successful. It lays further responsibilities on the agency.
	Another of our big concerns is conviction and detection, and the agency often has to do the detection work that leads to conviction. The Bill contains strong penalties to deal with fly-tippers, but someone has to be convicted before they are imposed. That means that they must be detected first and if we do not do that, we will not be able to deal with the repeat fly-tipper who runs a business based on fly-tipping and knows that he will get away with that. We shall not even be able to deal with the curious cases in which someone fly-tips opposite a Travellers' site, because he thinks that the Travellers will be blamed and he will get away with it.
	As we know, in 2003, the Environment Agency dealt with 5,399 incidents of fly-tipping, but there were only 254 prosecutions. That is not good enough. We need to get real deterrents in place, but that percentage of prosecutions is totally inadequate in sending the message that the polluter will and must pay. Much more needs to be done.
	Although we agree with the Conservatives about some aspects of the Bill, I am worried about their attitude to it. They opposed it in the first place, so it seems that if they cannot have it their way, they are not keen on it at all. Liberal Democrats are not entirely happy with it, but we must support it because there is no way that we can walk away from a Bill that will get hard with polluters. I serve on the Environmental Audit Committee, which has investigated environmental crime and the courts, fly-tipping and graffiti. The Bill addresses many such problems. One of our reports said that more resources were needed, and although that needs to be considered in another place, we must support such a Bill because pollution has an impact on communities.
	The Conservatives called for the Environment Agency to have the power of arrest, but the agency does not want that because it thinks that it would be inappropriate. Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to back that up. The Environment Agency rightly wants uniformed police to make arrests because the people involved in such activities are often deeply unpleasant and vicious individuals. We are also worried about who will clean up land.
	The chairman of the Environment Agency wrote a letter that was published in The Times on 1 February in which he commented on the Conservative party's James report, and I have listened carefully to the Conservatives to find out how they would pay for their proposals. The letter said:
	"The James report for the Conservative Party on the savings to be made from bureaucracy proposes cutting government grants to the Environment Agency by £47 million, which it describes as cuts in 'intrusive enforcement by the Environment Agency'  . . . As the Environment Agency actually spends £19 million on enforcement—acting on breaches of the law by the regulated sector as well as tracking down criminals acting outside the system altogether—my board would dearly like to understand what else is for the chop.
	Without further enlightenment, which is not available in the report itself, we are forced to conclude that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition to significantly cut the policing of criminal dumping of waste and to reduce monitoring of the environment to safeguard public health, the maintenance of our natural habitats and upkeep of locks and weirs on rivers."
	The letter went on to say:
	"In the circumstances we can hardly fail to conclude that Mr James's recommendations have no basis in even the most rudimentary understanding of our business."
	I am sorry that such letters must be written, because whether we are Government or Opposition Members, we are all are trying to find better ways of running government. We all want to get best value for the taxpayer, but the Conservatives cannot say on the one hand that they want more enforcement and powers of arrest, but say on the other that they would take away the money that would allow that to happen. We have heard nothing from the Conservatives about how they intend to pay for their proposals.
	I am pleased about aspects of the Bill because they represent progress. I am glad that stronger action will be taken on abandoned vehicles. A lady who lives close to my constituency office, which is in a residential area that is not at the best end of town, takes it upon herself to record the numbers of abandoned vehicles and to feed them through the system, and she lets me know how she is doing. Such people need encouragement and to know that councils will act. Vehicles for sale on the streets cause a nuisance and the situation has been allowed to continue for far too long. That practice has started to be thought of as a fact of life because councils do not do much about it, so anything that makes the law to deal with the problem stronger is desperately important.

Anne McIntosh: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady and reading "A Better Environment, A Better Life: Liberal Democrat Policies for the Environment". If she is so committed to the Bill, why does it not feature in the Liberal Democrats' environmental policies?

Sue Doughty: I am interested in the hon. Lady's intervention, especially if she wants to discuss our entire policy manifesto, but we are debating a Government Bill. We have not listed all their Bills in our manifesto because we are the Liberal Democrats. I am sure that the Conservatives have taken it on themselves to support the occasional Bill and that that has not appeared in their manifesto. She will have heard that I support other aspects of waste management that are also becoming Labour party policy, in particular measures to deal with plastic bags.
	We need to make progress. More needs to be done. The problem of chewing gum has not been satisfactorily resolved. With a little time, I hope that in the other place the Government will introduce stronger proposals on chewing gum, given the breadth of debate on the issue. We are all concerned about it, and we want some action.
	I thank the Minister for his letter on insects. We had an interesting debate about insects, but more needs to be said about the infestation of insects from premises. I am sure that that will be raised in another place, because we need more clarification of what he suggested in his letter.
	The Bill has our support. It is desperately important that we get a clear message out about how polluters must pay for what they do. I look forward to it being improved in another place.

Liz Blackman: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak and many points have been made several times over. Not surprisingly, I welcome the Bill. Time and time again, we have heard about the link between antisocial behaviour and poor, neglected and abused environments. It is right that the Bill focuses on breaking that link. Environmental vandalism exists in all our constituencies, in small and large areas.
	The consultation was crucial in introducing the measures. As far as I can tell, it was extensive and rigorous. The outcome is that the Bill complements earlier legislation, including the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, with which I was pleased to be involved. One of the Bill's aspects is to strengthen existing partnerships by requiring responsible authorities to ensure that tackling such behaviour is at the heart of their strategies. It also extends powers to partners, including parishes, extends and toughens penalties, and simplifies processes and procedures, which is important because it makes them easier to implement.
	I welcome in particular, as I am sure do my constituents, the wider use of fixed penalty notices, improvements to gating, which is especially relevant in Erewash, and tougher measures on fly-tipping, because Erewash has urban fringes that suffer from that crime, from graffiti, from nuisance vehicles and from dumped cars and litter. I recently conducted a large survey on issues that concern my constituents, and litter was at the top of the pile. In fact, it has risen to the top of the pile over the past couple of years.
	Among the range of penalties and measures that the Bill provides to tackle litter specifically, one gem is the ability for responsible authorities to impose litter cleaning notices on private households. Interspersed between the well kept houses with beautiful gardens that people have taken an awful lot of time and trouble to nurture—the real homes—it is demoralising to see front gardens that look like the local refuse tip, or worse. For the first time, the Bill gives powers to require those people to clean up their act. I am delighted with that measure.
	There is more to do on environmental crime, but for me the centrality of the Bill is whether the measures in it will be implemented by those that have been given the responsibilities. I want to give some examples of episodes in my constituency over the past year or so which have led us to pause with concern.
	West Hallam community centre in the village of West Hallam belongs to the Conservative parish council of West Hallam. The playgroup that rents the centre asked me to write to the management committee of the building to ask it to remove graffiti, and this is what I got back:
	"We recognise graffiti is a problem and have on several previous occasions had it removed. In our experience, however, unlike the suggestion in your letter, we have found the removal of the graffiti gives the green light for it to appear again."
	I am not speechless on many occasions, but that letter took my breath away. We are talking about transferring powers to such groups. I am not for one minute saying that all parish councils in Erewash hold that attitude—I am sure that they do not—but we must accept that there are still pockets of ignorance in our communities and we need to challenge them.
	The other episode that I would like to mention concerns one of my leisure centres that has a big recycling park, which was covered in dumped rubbish a year ago at Christmas and new year. One of my constituents flagged up the problem, so I challenged the local Conservative council to do something about it. A year ago, I received a letter saying that the council had put in extra resources and would monitor the situation and make further resources available the following year.
	I went to the leisure centre for a swim on 2 January this year, and what I saw took my breath away. The area was stacked with plastic bags full of Christmas refuse and children were playing in it. I again wrote a very strong letter to the council, and got this reply:
	"We deliberately stepped up our efforts to keep our main recycling sites tidy during the Christmas period following the problems experienced in previous years . . . Whilst this extra activity was successful, the real problem is residents using the recycling points to dump residual waste. This is in fact fly-tipping; a criminal offence carrying a maximum fine of £2,500. Whilst the Council plans to provide similar enhanced collection services next Christmas, we will be playing a much stronger enforcement role and persons caught fly-tipping will be prosecuted."
	The letter finally told me that both the tip and the recycling processing plant were closed at that time.
	Local councils must get their act together. My council knew that there was a problem. It should have supplied more refuse collection facilities. It should also have challenged the behaviour of those fly-tipping, and should have ensured that the local tip was open. This is not just about enforcing the law but about ensuring that there is the capacity for people who want to dump their refuse legitimately.
	Two years down the line, the council is putting a much better structure in place. It has made a significant investment in a warden system, which is about to come on stream, and more money is being invested in refuse collection and street cleaning. However, those measures must be implemented thoroughly and speedily, and the council must be transparent about its activities and schedules and make clear what people can expect from its services both on a regular basis and when a problem occurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) has said, a hotline should be introduced so that people can report fly-tipping and littering, and feedback should be obtained on how services are working.
	The Bill is good and the measures will work if all responsible bodies, and the public, understand that environmental crime can be tackled, but that we all have a role to play. It provides an excellent opportunity to do more to clean up the environment.

Derek Conway: It seems almost an eternity, Mr. Speaker, since I raised with you the question of whether we would get an opportunity to discuss a particular part of the Bill, about which I have driven the Minister to boredom and distraction because of my insistence on trying to flesh out some of the details of the legislation dealing with dogs. I do not apologise for my interest in the matter. I have served on several Standing Committees with the Minister and I know how he likes to operate—if he can cross the street for a punch-up, he always will. I have no doubt that when he replies to my observations, which I hope will be brief, he will give me a kicking.
	Conservative Members have made it plain that our opposition to parts of the Bill, which contains many good clauses, is not tooth and nail, and I do not have a great deal of difficulty with the Minister's proposals on the control of dogs and handling stray dogs. However, he should not have taken umbrage at a number of interventions—in particular, my interventions—because it is his job to explain the reasoning behind his proposals and it is our job to press him. I hope that he will not take undue offence at our pressing him, although we agree with much of what he is trying to do, because that is what he is paid for.
	Sadly, I missed the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee on 27 January, because I was next door chairing the Committee on the Identity Cards Bill, which was equally riveting. The Minister was obviously having a good time that morning, because everybody was getting a good beating, and he mentioned that he had discussed the Bill with the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and a vet. When I spoke briefly on Second Reading, however, those organisations had not been consulted.

Alun Michael: The meeting took place after Second Reading, when those organisations approached me with their concerns. We examined those concerns and amended the Bill, as I said earlier. We originally hoped that the discussions on the transfer of resources would be ready so that the Bill could be implemented as originally drafted three months after Royal Assent, but to put the question beyond all doubt, we amended it to ensure that that part of the Bill will be commenced after the discussion on resources.

Derek Conway: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and commend him on listening to those worthy organisations, which are experienced in such matters, and on amending the Bill, which is to his credit—I am sure that those organisations are grateful. However, he must accept that hon. Members are astonished that a Minister could introduce a Bill to change the legislation on handling dogs, which has existed for more than 100 years, without consulting the biggest animal welfare charities that deal with dogs in the UK—the Dogs Trust, which used to be the National Canine Defence League, the Kennel Club and Battersea dogs home—it should properly be called the dogs home, Battersea—which is not a million miles from this place. Battersea dogs home says that more than 51 per cent. of the stray dogs that it is asked to take in arrive on a Monday after the weekend, so there is a problem with what goes on out of hours.
	In the light of the Minister's long experience, and my briefer experience, in government, I find it difficult to believe that a Department would have the effrontery to put before the House a Bill that will place a difficult burden on animal welfare charities—including the National Dog Warden Association, whose representatives the Minister did not meet at all—without consulting them beforehand. Those are the people who are doing the job. We can talk about it here, but they are the ones cleaning up the mess that we humans leave when we do not treat our animals properly.

Alun Michael: I am not crossing the road to beat up the hon. Gentleman, but I want to correct his assertions. The only outstanding issue is that of the transfer of resources necessary to make one organisation—the local authority—responsible for dealing with strays, which, as far as I can make out, everybody supports. That was the only reasonable point that was made—all the others were misapprehensions about what the Bill would do, and I was able to correct them. Often, the problem is not a lack of consultation but a misunderstanding about what a piece of legislation does, which needs to be corrected by additions long after the consultation has been completed.

Derek Conway: The Minister utters honeyed words, and I am tempted to believe them, because I know that he has the best of intentions. However, even when he did eventually deign to meet the biggest animal welfare charities that are doing the work that his Department is dealing with in the Bill, their conclusions—I think that they were circulated to him—were negative. The Dogs Trust, which he met, stated in a briefing:
	"Insufficient evidence has been taken as to the problems that will be created."
	It continues:
	"Adequate funding must be made available."
	We wait to hear, because nobody yet knows, what this will cost or where the money will come from. The Minister is plucking figures out of the air. One would think that the House of Commons had some kind of fiscal responsibility concerning the government of our country, and would be entitled to know whether we are talking about millions, or hundreds of thousands, of pounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) gave some figures earlier, but the Minister is the man who is being paid to do that.
	The briefing continues:
	"There are no proposals to enlighten the general public about what to do when finding a stray dog."
	Whether we like it or not, when the Bill becomes law there will be confusion about who cares for the dog.

Anne McIntosh: I entirely support my hon. Friend. Is he even more shocked and alarmed that the National Dog Warden Association says in its conclusions:
	"We have not proposed any amendments as we believe that the legislative proposals are wrong because they have no prospect of being financed properly"?

Derek Conway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I find it incredible that the Minister has not met the NDWA. He talks about local authorities, but it is not the chief executive or the clerk of some town council who rounds up dogs, but the people with the vans.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is making a meal of half a biscuit. I remind him that dog wardens are employed by local authorities, which have been fully consulted and engaged all along with the transfer of responsibilities. At no time—I underline this—has the NDWA sought a meeting, at ministerial or official level, with DEFRA. All the proposals have been in the public domain for a very long time. The hon. Gentleman is making a tremendous effort to find something to criticise, but if this is the worst he can do, we have done pretty well.

Derek Conway: The trouble is that when the Minister moves on to greater things, or whatever he does, it will be NDWA members who are rounding up the dogs. They, not he or any of the rest of us who take part in these debates, are the men and women out there in the cold trying to sort out society's problems when abandoned animals run off.
	It is all very well for the Minister to be caustic about the NDWA and to write it off in the rather high-handed way that anyone who has had dealings with this Government has come to expect, but it will not wash. The other place will not unreasonably conclude not only that the time that this House has had for scrutiny was wholly inadequate—not because of you, Mr. Speaker, but because of the Government motions that have been forced upon us—but that it is incredible that the very bodies that will be involved in clearing up the mess left behind were not even remotely consulted, until the Minister was pressed on Second Reading to find out what they had to say.
	I appreciate that other hon. Members have sat throughout our long debate and now wish to take part, so I shall conclude shortly. Although the Minister has made it clear that the responsibility is moving from the police to the local authorities, the chief executives of which he tells me he has consulted, he said, as is recorded in column 253 of the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings on 27 January, that the police could get hold of dogs and would retain some responsibilities. Some confusion therefore exists. The explanatory notes do not say that at all. Page 30 conveys a confused message about responsibilities when the Bill is enacted.
	None of us claims that what the Minister is trying to do is bad. He is not a bad man and we do not say that the Bill is a bad measure. That is probably why the House will not divide on it. However, although the intentions are good, we are worried, especially from an animal welfare perspective, about whether the practicalities of some of the measure will be effected. I believe that local authorities will be confronted with a much higher bill than they or the Minister anticipate, and that the dog wardens who do the job and the animal welfare charities that try to rehome the dogs or care for those that local authorities do not put to sleep, made a reasonable point. However, they had to make it to the Minister in a grudging form because he and his officials did not see them before the Bill was introduced.
	The Minister is trying to do something without thinking about it seriously, and I predict that, sadly, hon. Members will have to revert to the matter—doubtless when he has moved on to greater things.

Andy Burnham: It is a pleasure to make what I believe will be the last contribution on the Bill in this place. It is an excellent measure and my right hon. Friend the Minister deserves congratulations on piloting it through our proceedings. It shows that the Government are on the side of residents in my constituency—and others like it throughout the country—who play by the rules and want to live in a decent community. It is squarely in touch with their concerns. That contrasts sharply with the 40-minute whinge that we heard from Conservative Front Benchers, from which it was not even clear whether the Conservative party would support the Bill.
	The measure will be directly relevant to all my constituents. It will deliver more for them and their lives than another high profile Bill with which the Minister has been involved. It addresses a subject that other hon. Members have mentioned: a growing anxiety about what people perceive as a decline in standards of respect and the culture of consideration for others. We all feel that there has been a trend in the past 15 or 20 years towards greater disrespect for others, antisocial behaviour and standards of behaviour that fall below what would have been acceptable 15, 20, 25 and 30 years ago.
	In my constituency, people casually break bus shelters, drop litter and scrawl graffiti. I trace that to parenting and the importance of accepting parental responsibility—I hope that the Government will revert to those issues in their manifesto.

Colin Burgon: Thatcherism.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right to mention Thatcherism, which meant that communities such as mine were cut adrift. The infrastructure was abandoned and neglected and people were left to fend for themselves. Today, we are picking up the pieces of the mantra of, "There is no such thing as society." It will take a generation to eradicate that culture, which the Conservative party bequeathed to the country.
	The roots of the behaviour are complex but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) said in his excellent contribution, we must prevent it from becoming self-perpetuating. Communities witness the decline—the broken windows and the litter on the streets—and people decide that there is no point in getting involved and acting because things will not get better.
	The Bill tries to tackle that defeatist culture, which can take hold of a community, whereby more and more properties go downhill and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) said, the decent residents who look after their front gardens are in the minority and private landlords allow their properties to go to rack and ruin and do not care as long as the cheque comes in at the end of every month.
	Only last Friday, I met a group of residents from Glebe street in the heart of my constituency. More than anything else, they want the encouragement to fight back. They want to know that if they are going to make the effort to improve their community, they will have the power to do so and that they will get the encouragement to take positive, practical steps to clean up their community. They do not want to feel that the authorities are not on their side or that they are wasting their time. The Bill gives direct backing to those groups of residents who want to transform their communities, which is one of its key strengths.
	I want to talk briefly about the provisions in clause 2 that deal with gating orders. The borough of Wigan has made a great effort to look into alley-gating schemes. It probably has among the highest number of back-to-back terraced properties in the country, both in the main towns of Wigan and Leigh and in the outlying towns of Golborne, Atherton and Hindley. One of the peculiarities of our borough is that, on the Wigan side, the backs—the alleys behind the terraced houses—are unadopted, so the council has been able to proceed with alley-gating schemes without any legal hindrance. The backs can be closed off without recourse to the courts. In my constituency, however, most of the backs are adopted highways, and the council has therefore had great difficulty in introducing orders to enable them to be gated for the benefit of the residents.
	I can tell the Minister that those backs are the focal point for crime and antisocial behaviour. Only a few months ago, a young toddler in my constituency stepped on a discarded syringe in the backs behind his house. It is common for syringes to be discarded there, and he had the misfortune to step on one. His mother was beside herself with worry about him, as the Minister can imagine. This flags up the general problem that these places are used by people for drinking and drug taking, and they create an appallingly unsafe environment that causes great concern to the residents.
	We have been trying to introduce alley-gating schemes in my constituency, but, as I have said, the alleyways there are adopted. At the moment, the council is bringing a test case under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, citing severe antisocial behaviour and public safety as reasons to have the public highway permanently gated. The case has been pioneered by my constituent, Deborah Murphy, who is the chair of the Wigan road residents association and neighbourhood watch. She has doggedly pursued efforts to gate the backs behind her house. Gates were erected, but they had to be taken down again because of legal difficulties relating to gating an adopted highway.
	I hope that the Minister will dwell on this point as the Bill continues its passage through another place. The provisions in clause 2 relating to gating orders state that the Government may require
	"a council to hold a public inquiry"
	in regard to the gating of a particular area or community. My concern is that too much bureaucracy and red tape will be put in the way of residents such as Deborah Murphy, who are trying to do something to improve their community.

Alun Michael: It is appropriate that there should be a permissive ability to hold public inquiries, because in some circumstances damage to others could be created as a result of closing off access to an alleyway. We are moving from an automatic requirement for a public inquiry, precisely to address the issue that my hon. Friend raises. In some circumstances, it is manifest to everyone that alley-gating is the best thing that could happen, and that it happen with a minimum of bureaucracy. I can assure him that our aspirations—and the way in which these provisions are set out in the Bill—will address the issues that he is raising.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification; it will greatly reassure those of my constituents who are considering these schemes. My point is that if the procedure became excessively bureaucratic, people would lose heart. If they were faced with too much bureaucracy when trying to take positive action to change their community, they would quickly be put off. We must not allow that to happen. People who are trying to get actively engaged in their community should not feel the walls of bureaucracy rising up around them. However, I take the Minister's point.
	Wigan council's director of engineering, Peter Taylor, has asked the Minister to consider whether the process should be akin to that for traffic regulation orders, which would make it much easier for the authority to take things forward. We are still bringing the order through under the 2000 Act as an interim measure, but I very much hope that the use of public inquiries will be the exception, not the norm, and that residents will be actively encouraged to take forward initiatives to have their alleyways gated when they believe that that could make a substantial difference.
	Following those few remarks, I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this legislation, which will directly benefit my constituents. I know it will be warmly welcomed and I very much hope that the Bill is not the beginning of the end of rebuilding a culture of respect and higher standards in our communities, but part of a long process in which the Government are engaged.
	We must carry on getting tougher on antisocial behaviour until we can genuinely say that the streets of towns such as Leigh, and others represented by hon. Members who are present, are safe and decent places where the law-abiding majority are in the ascendancy, and that the culture is one in which people show respect and consideration for others.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
	Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

European Scrutiny

Ordered,
	That Mr Liam Byrne be added to the European Scrutiny Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ECONOMIC REGENERATION (BURTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Janet Dean: My constituency has benefited enormously over the past few years from the investment through Government and European aid, as well as the increase in Government funding for our public services, programmes such as new deal and the massive increase in support for hard-working families. Most of the regeneration money has been concentrated in the inner wards of Burton upon Trent. However, the six northern rural parishes of my constituency previously received the former European regional development fund objective 5 funding. Uttoxeter, which received no Government help in the early 1980s when more than 2,000 jobs were lost with the closure of Bamford's agricultural factory and the local dairy, is, I am pleased to say, one of the towns that have received funding through the Government's market towns initiative.
	The need to address the problem of pockets of deprivation in Burton upon Trent has been recognised with millions of pounds of investment in the past 10 years, secured through objective 2 funding; the single regeneration budget—rounds 2 and 6; the neighbourhood management initiative; and Sure Start. The £20 million of regeneration funding has gone a long way to open up an area of Burton upon Trent called Centrum 100 for inward investment, as well as helping to reduce unemployment and raise educational attainment.
	SRB 6 money is being used to undertake work in three local high schools and five primary schools, which is improving results as well as personal and social development. In the neighbourhood management initiative area of the town, local people are being involved in improving the local environment and feel safer due to the proactive work of the neighbourhood wardens who have been funded through the initiative. The Sure Start programme is making a real difference to local families and has recently moved into the new children's centre, which is bringing together all the local children's services, including—I believe uniquely—paediatric specialists.
	I am proud of my constituency, which is probably one of the most varied in the country, owing to its fine mix of urban and rural areas, as well as a population with many different backgrounds and origins. I am proud of all those who are working hard to improve the local communities in my constituency and the lives of local residents and I am proud of the increase in Government investment since 1997, which has brought more teachers, nurses, doctors and police officers, as well as improvements to our school buildings, such as the new Stapenhill sixth-form centre and the replacement Mosley primary school. I am glad that almost 4,000 pensioner households in Burton now benefit from the pension credit, and that more than 9,000 hard-working families are being helped by the child and working tax credits. I am pleased that unemployment in Burton has fallen by 68 per cent. since 1997, and that by March 2004, 800 young people were helped into work by the new deal for young people, and 400—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Janet Dean: Four hundred people were helped by the new deal for over-25s, and 380 by the new deal for lone parents. The number of people unemployed for more than one year fell by 95 per cent. between 1997 and 2004.
	Having described many of the improvements that the policies of the Labour Government have achieved, as well as the successes of regeneration funding, I must say that I believe that we have only just commenced the regeneration of Burton upon Trent. We need a prolonged and sustained effort for at least another 10 years if we are really to address some of the key challenges that face the local community.
	While youth unemployment has fallen by 67.8 per cent. since 1997, it is proportionately higher in Burton upon Trent, at 30.1 per cent. of the total number unemployed, than in Great Britain as a whole. In Burton ward, youth unemployment is as high as 46 per cent. of the total.
	In education, although GCSE attainment has improved dramatically at Paget and Paulet high schools as a result of SRB intervention and the hard work and dedication of the staff, the number of pupils attaining five or more GCSEs at grades A to C in Burton schools is still below the national average at 46.1 per cent., compared with 53.7 per cent. nationally. That figure masks the low attainment levels of about 30 per cent. in the heart of Burton neighbourhood management area, which demonstrates the under-achievement in some parts of the town and among children from ethnic minority communities across Burton.
	Furthermore, the Basic Skills Agency found that 28 per cent. of the inner-Burton working population have poor literacy skills, and 30.6 per cent. have poor numeracy skills compared with 24 per cent. nationally. The 2004 indices of deprivation revealed that east Staffordshire has three super-output areas—which, as my right hon. Friend will know, contain 1,000 to 5,000 people—in the top 10 per cent. most deprived super-output areas in the country. Those are all located in Burton upon Trent, within Winshill, Shobnall and Stapenhill wards.
	Income deprivation is an issue for around a third of the population, particularly in areas of those three wards. Lack of employment is also a problem, primarily in areas of Stapenhill, Horninglow and Anglesey wards. Education is an issue in areas of Stapenhill, which are in the top 5 per cent. most deprived super-output areas in the country. Two areas, one in Winshill and the other in Burton ward, also show up in the top 10 per cent. most deprived for crime in the country.
	The living environment domain considers poor housing conditions and air quality, and deprivation is found in areas of Anglesey, Shobnall and Eton park wards such that they are in the top 5 per cent. most deprived super-output areas in the country—I do not know who came up with the idea of super-output areas, but it is very difficult to say.
	The population of inner Burton is accommodated in more than 20,000 households, and more than a third—39 per cent.—live in terraced properties. That is well above the average for England and Wales of 26 per cent., and is more akin to cities rather than towns the size of Burton upon Trent. Recent studies undertaken by East Staffordshire borough council on the condition of the houses show that many millions of pounds need to be invested to bring these terraced properties up to modern standards.
	Another challenge is to address health inequalities. Between 1998 and 2002, the rate of death from circulatory disease and from coronary heart disease in Burton was noticeably above the England rates—59.7 and 36.5 under-75s per 10,000 people respectively. Victoria ward's rates were more than double the national average for both diseases, while Edgehill and Waterside wards' rates were significantly above the England average for both causes of death. Rates of death from circulatory disease are well above the England average in the wards of Broadway, Eton and Horninglow.
	In the 1980s and 1990s, the borough lost more than 9,000 jobs as a result of restructuring of the brewing industry. Although, thankfully, the industry appears to have reached a period of stability after many years of uncertainty, a recent economic forecast study undertaken by East Staffordshire borough council suggests the loss of another 3,500 manufacturing jobs in the period up to 2020.
	The economic difficulties faced by Burton upon Trent are acknowledged in the Advantage West Midlands corporate plan, which states:
	"In addition there are a number of other towns within the region, which do not fall within the scope of the Market Towns Initiative, that are experiencing economic difficulties and which require Agency intervention. Over the Corporate Plan period the Agency proposes to begin to address the issues in these towns, initially starting with Hereford, Telford and Burton upon Trent."
	It is vital for the need for continuing regeneration funding for Burton to be recognised, so that it is possible to maintain and build on the improvements achieved in recent years. Single regeneration budget, Sure Start, neighbourhood management initiative and European regional development fund moneys are all due to end in the next two years. It is important for future regeneration funding, whatever form it takes, to recognise pockets of deprivation in towns such as Burton upon Trent, as well as considering the needs of rural areas and market towns like Uttoxeter.
	Regeneration strategies that focus on the urban areas of the west midlands and north Staffordshire have little impact on my constituency because of the distance from those major conurbations. Lying on the eastern edge of Staffordshire and the north-eastern edge of the west midlands, Burton upon Trent abuts the Swadlincote area of south Derbyshire in the east midlands region. Indeed, the town relates both socially and economically to Swadlincote in what many already recognise as a sub-regional entity. Burton upon Trent itself is a popular and thriving sub-regional shopping centre, and the town has a wide catchment area for leisure activities and services including Queen's hospital. The Burton travel-to-work area extends east and west from the town to include Ashby and Uttoxeter.
	Burton upon Trent has a distinctive identity. Known for its brewing industry, it has a strong cluster of food and drink businesses. The town's central location, with good transport links to the west midlands as well as to the north and east, has encouraged companies to locate in the area. Indeed, the rise in the number of businesses in the sub-region in the last five years upstages the rate in England in two sectors: other services, and transport and communications. There is pressure for development in the Burton area for housing, employment and retail growth.
	People want to live in Burton, and increasingly housing is being developed on reclaimed sites, bringing life back to the town centre. Businesses want to invest in the area, but we need an early resolution of the promised commitment of £14 million to develop the land south of Branston for employment. I hope that the Government office for the west midlands can speedily complete its appraisal of the project to allow the £7 million of ERDF moneys, together with the similar amount provisionally allocated by Advantage West Midlands, to open up the area and help to create 1,100 new jobs. Making that land available is crucial to ensuring that economic restructuring can continue, to compensate for the potential toss of manufacturing jobs in the future.
	Securing that funding from the two regional agencies from the west midlands would not only help development of the land south of Branston but, perhaps, help to unlock significant private-sector investment to allow 400 acres of brownfield land at the former Drakelow power station in south Derbyshire to be developed. That would help both the sub-region and the wider conurbations of the east and west midlands. There is a real opportunity to consider the economic regeneration of Burton upon Trent as part of the "Smart Growth: the Midlands Way" document, which is currently undergoing consultation. Efforts to ensure the area's economic prosperity are enhanced by the greater collaboration of the east and west midlands regions.
	In summary, there has been a great deal of progress in tackling deprivation and under-achievement in areas of Burton, but there is a lot more to do. We need to continue to raise educational achievement and the skills base, and to develop industries that raise income levels. We need massive investment in housing in the inner wards of Burton, and we need to tackle existing health inequalities. To address these problems, we need to continue to receive regeneration funding, as well as the record investment in public services that we have seen since 1997. We need a Government who are committed to continuing the new deal to help people into work, rather than to scrapping it, as the Conservatives have promised to do.
	I realise that my right hon. Friend will not be able to tell me what form of regeneration funding will replace the current programmes, but I hope that he will ensure that pockets of deprivation in constituencies such as mine, which are away from the major conurbations, will continue to receive the help that they need. Regeneration funding is essential to ensure that land is available to continue the economic restructuring necessary to compensate for any displacement of manufacturing jobs. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure an early commitment to the release of the £14 million provisional sum allocated to land south of Branston, so that we can see the creation of 1,100 new jobs and the possibility of improved cross-border working, bringing greater prosperity to the whole sub-region.

Keith Hill: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate and on bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. This is an opportunity not just for the House to hear how the people of Burton have benefited from the Government's regeneration policy, as she so eloquently demonstrated; it is also an opportunity for me to place on the record our continuing commitment to regeneration policies that have been shown to work. I have to say that the Government were already aware of the challenges facing Burton, not least due to the assiduous representations that my hon. Friend has made on her constituents' behalf. After tonight, I am even more comprehensively informed.
	During the 1990s, Burton lost more than 9,000 manufacturing jobs. Although it played an important role in the industrial revolution, it was perhaps best known for its contribution to the beer pumps of the world. Sadly, following the closure of many breweries, its importance as the centre of the nation's brewing industry has also diminished. The people of the area have had to confront changing economic realities and it has not been easy. As my hon. Friend said, three areas in the borough are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country, and average earnings lag behind the rest of the country. However, with household names such as JCB, Pirelli, Holland & Barrett and Marmite still based in the area, and with unemployment levels falling by nearly twice the national average, Burton has some real strengths on which to build. The pride and commitment of local people, as we have heard, has been buttressed by the funding provided for regeneration from a wide variety of sources.
	As we have also heard, parts of Burton have been eligible for European structural funds under various programmes since 1994; indeed, Burton has received grants in the region of £5.5 million. We have further heard about the impact of such funding in providing new skills for local people. It has provided a purpose built centre—WIRED—in which film and radio production, audiovisual editing and website design skills can be taught. I recognise that the current funding programme finishes in 2006, but I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, it is simply too early to say what the outcome of the European structural fund negotiations will be at this stage. Again, as we have heard, there is also the single regeneration budget, which has provided much needed support to initiatives across Burton, such as the Burton investing in inclusion programme. That scheme shows how the SRB has succeeded in levering in extra resources. Burton is receiving additional funding worth more than £6.5 million awarded by the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands.
	Again as we have heard, Advantage West Midlands is playing a welcome role in the regeneration of Burton and surrounding areas. It has identified, as one of its key delivery vehicles, 10 business clusters. Advantage West Midlands is investing some £16 million in cluster projects next year, some of which will be particularly helpful in stimulating regeneration in the Burton area.
	With its history of involvement with the food and drink industry, Burton is particularly well placed to take advantage of two cluster projects: the food and drink information centre, which provides regular industry information; and the trade and consumer development project, which supports small and medium-sized enterprises in the staging of consumer and trade events. The latter project also provides assistance with product listings of retailers and caterers to enable local firms to take full advantage of marketing opportunities. It has to be said that some local products need little help. With 180,000 jars of marmite leaving the Burton factory every day, somebody, somewhere must love it. I know I do. As a regular consumer of this excellent spread, I can definitely say that "Marmite is my mate"!
	On a somewhat more serious note, Advantage West Midlands is also looking at improving higher education provision in the town to ensure that the people of Burton have the necessary skills to take advantage of every opportunity that arises. Discussions with Staffordshire university and Burton college regarding the provision of a higher education centre at Burton further education college are at an early stage, but even at the concept stage, this £4 million project has already attracted potential funding partners such as the Higher Education Funding Council, Burton college itself, Staffordshire learning and skills council and Advantage West Midlands. The provision of higher education facilities in the town can only benefit the local community and help Burton people to gain the confidence to take control of their own regeneration needs.
	That is why the heart of Burton neighbourhood management pathfinder is so important. It is one of 35 pathfinders launched in 2002–03 with a brief to drive improvements to local services by making them more responsive to local needs. The pathfinder covers parts of the wards of Eton Park and Shobnall in the town centre, with a population of 10,000. It has an expected allocation of £3.5 million over seven years, supported through the new ventures fund, of which around £1.4 million has been spent to date.
	This pathfinder has identified low educational attainment and lack of access to child care as barriers to employment, particularly to higher paid work. It is therefore supporting initiatives to provide coaching for GCSE pupils and other measures to improve school attendance, such as first day contact—a scheme to tackle the problem at the very start of a new school career and to stop non-attendance becoming a habit. The heart of Burton pathfinder has also, together with Sure Start and European funding, contributed to a children's centre, which provides 60 child care places, helping parents to take up offers of work. The really important aspect of that work is the way in which the community is being involved in managing its own neighbourhood.
	I have already spoken about the importance of the neighbourhood level, but as we have heard this evening, there is also a need to ensure that Burton has its place in regional economic growth strategies. I would agree with my hon. Friend that Burton now has the opportunity to act as a gateway between the west and east midland regions. The plans for "Smart Growth—the Midlands Way" give the town the perfect opportunity to take advantage of development opportunities, for instance with the site referred to by my hon. Friend already as the land south of Branston. It is a 120-acre site on the southern edge of Burton and it is well connected to the road network, with direct access to the A38. The site has the potential to help Burton take its rightful place in the new regional spatial strategy for the west midlands. Although I cannot make any announcement this evening, I certainly undertake to maintain a strong interest in the progress being made in bringing the site into development.
	Burton should continue to make its case to take real advantage of all of the opportunities available. It needs to continue to exploit its position as a gateway linking the M6 in the west midlands with the M1 in the east midlands. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to continuing to support regeneration and neighbourhood renewal. We are getting better at targeting the pockets of deprivation that she mentioned, and we will continue to do so.
	I wish to take this opportunity to commend my Department's five-year strategy, "People, Places and Prosperity", to the House. It sets out our policy towards regeneration and should give my hon. Friend, the House and the country at large reassurance that we will not deviate from the successful policies that she described as working in Burton. We are also committed to a continual programme of improving the targeting and operation of those policies, which, as we know from careful monitoring, are having an impact. The Government are pledged to a programme that has already brought benefits to Burton, as we have heard this evening, and to many other locations all over England. I wish every success to the people of Burton and other parts of my hon. Friend's constituency and to my hon. Friend herself, who is working so hard on their behalf.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.